I'm going to miss the first part of this, but look forward to kibitzing with you all some more later.posted by Miko at 1:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm just going to put this out there: I like both of them. I really want one of them to become the next president. Either one would be fine. Great, even.posted by gwint at 1:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [49 favorites]

I too would really like either RolandOfEld or Miko to become the next president.posted by XMLicious at 1:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [28 favorites]

If I've already decided on a candidate and know the debate will mostly be moderators wanting feisty soundbites on unimportant "inside baseball" media squabbling, at what point does continuing to watch these things become masochism?posted by downtohisturtles at 1:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Robin Leach of “Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous” fame has been a journalist for more than 50 years and has spent the past 15 years giving readers the inside scoop on Las Vegas, the world’s premier platinum playground.

I'm just going to put this out there: I like both of them. I really want one of them to become the next president. Either one would be fine. Great, even.

I think they're both extremely flawed as liberal politicians, but either of them would be better than putting an enraged hive of killer bees in the Oval Office, which in turn would be preferable to any of the Republicans.posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [42 favorites]

I too would really like either RolandOfEld or Miko to become the next president.

Yeah I dunno, I'd be tempted to vote for "Machine That Continuously Injects Beeswarms Into The Whitehouse, Congress, and The Pentagon".posted by selfnoise at 1:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [20 favorites]

Oh yeah! Take all the microbeads we can't sell anymore and force Trump to swim in them until only pure, unsullied clean flesh remains.posted by selfnoise at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think they're both extremely flawed as liberal politicians

Can you elaborate further on what you see as extreme flaws for both candidates? Always curious as to what other people are thinking.posted by kyp at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2016

Very interesting that it's just those three

They did Carson, Rubio, and Cruz last night. Carson talked about the olden days when bears used to eat people, Rubio explained how he enjoys electronic dance music because of the clean wholesome lyrics, and Cruz sang a love song.posted by prize bull octorok at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

They did Carson, Rubio, and Cruz last night. Carson talked about the olden days when bears used to eat people, Rubio explained how he enjoys electronic dance music because of the clean wholesome lyrics, and Cruz sang a love song.

That was a pretty good description.

Also, Cruz was super mad at Trump, gave super long answers to questions to the point that you would forget that there was a question, and kept addressing Anderson Cooper, by name, instead of engaging with the town hall participants, while talking about how bad Trump is and how everyone hates him because he wants to get things done.

Rubio explained how he enjoys electronic dance music because of the clean wholesome lyrics

Mother of God it's true. He also says he grew up listening to 90s hip hop. I'm officially on board with Team This Reality is a Carnival of Jokes Being Written by a Stoned Screenwriter and I'd Like to Return to My Home Dimension, Please.posted by penduluum at 1:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [35 favorites]

Huh. I think that Tommy Boy clip may be what Nicolas Cage was going for in the Wicker Man remake.posted by Naberius at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2016

Nothing with either of these shows to make me miss this week's MetaFilter MST3K Club. It's CRASH OF MOONS. Crash of Hillary and Bernie or Crash of Jeb and the Donald won't come close. (And we do need to get some MST3K robots, old show or new, to riff the debates.)posted by oneswellfoop at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm sure this town format happened in past campaigns but I don't remember it at all. Did it happen? I don't mean the town hall where both candidates answer questions together before the election, I mean this one on one thing.posted by zutalors! at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2016

Vote your conscience, vote your consciousness, vote #1 quidnunc kid.

And once again, I appeal to quid's good graces (of which he has many), and respectfully suggest that I would make an ace Minister of Tourism. I mean, really top notch, none better. Thanks in advance! Kiss kiss!posted by Capt. Renault at 1:39 PM on February 18, 2016

Yeah, it really struck me how much time Cruz spent talking about Trump. All I could think was damn, he got in your head, man. He got in your head.posted by prize bull octorok at 1:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Can you elaborate further on what you see as extreme flaws for both candidates? Always curious as to what other people are thinking.

I'm not the one you asked, but I can certainly speculate!

Clinton is quite accomplished, plays the game well, but also has changed her tune with regard to Wall Street, appears beholden to banks, and while she hasn't dug in her heels regressive-style, she's not as progressive as her supporters present her.

Sanders is agitating for progressive causes, and is one of few candidates to embrace the word "socialism" rather than treat it like it's a dirty word. On the other hand, he's less accomplished than Clinton, and comes in a "crotchety old white man" package, rather than a more personable, charismatic form that might be better able to sell the causes he truly appears to believe in.

I'm a Sanders supporter, but I have to concede that the best combination might be a Clinton presidency with Sanders as a Biden-esque "loose cannon" that drives policy with sound-bites that are impolitic coming from the top executive, but need to be said. Similar to how Biden basically forced/allowed Obama to move forward with a marriage equality agenda.posted by explosion at 1:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

I would assume quidnunc kid would appoint an all-MeFite cabinet, so I'd just like to remind everyone of the positions available (per Wikipedia)...
Vice President
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security

Okay but for real let's think through this "enraged hive of killer bees in the Oval Office" idea. Perhaps the bees would be interpreted as holding primarily symbolic power, sort of like the Queen or a Governor General. Normal political process would not involve the President (an enraged hive of killer bees) at all. It would only be in the case of a constitutional crisis that the enraged hive of killer bees would be consulted.

It is unclear to whom day-to-day executive power would fall in this scenario. We could say it goes to the VP, but that is boring. Instead, let's say that it goes to the Cabinet, the Cabinet now being appointed by the Senate. Maybe the VP in their role as President of the Senate would nominate Cabinet members, to be approved by the Senate as a whole.

Okay, now that's the executive branch, unless there is some irresolvable dispute between the members of the Cabinet, or if a member of the Cabinet acts in ways clearly against the Constitution or against the "will of the enraged hive of killer bees." There would be a sort of unwritten constitution around what it means to be with or against the will of the enraged hive of killer bees. Disputes about what constitutes the will of the enraged hive of killer bees would go first to the White House Apiarist, and then if the Apiarist is unable to determine the will of the enraged hive of killer bees it would go to the Supreme Court.

Only in cases of extreme, irresolvable constitutional crisis would members of the Cabinet be made to "meet with the President."posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [24 favorites]

I would like to be recognized as Secretary of Agriculture Roger Tribbey.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:58 PM on February 18, 2016

I mean think about it if the president were an enraged hive of killer bees and the cabinet were a logpile full of spiders, how would anyone get any serious work done?posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

I think they're both extremely flawed as liberal politicians, but either of them would be better than putting an enraged hive of killer bees in the Oval Office, which in turn would be preferable to any of the Republicans.

I honestly believe disenfranchised millennials and technology will be the key to winning this election.posted by kyp at 2:14 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm not gonna read the link, because Tom Cotton sounds like a good name for a malevolent sprite from a folktale, and I'd like to keep that mental image intact.posted by prize bull octorok at 2:14 PM on February 18, 2016 [25 favorites]

You all are losing the Allergic To Bees vote. Now I have to check on Dr. Ben Carson's position on bees.posted by Room 641-A at 2:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, now that's the only mental image I have, and I'll be damned if that doesn't make any recollection of him like a billion times more entertaining.posted by MysticMCJ at 2:16 PM on February 18, 2016

On the other hand, he's less accomplished than Clinton, and comes in a "crotchety old white man" package, rather than a more personable, charismatic form that might be better able to sell the causes he truly appears to believe in.

Yeah, I never would have guessed how many people would end up liking Sanders more than Clinton - it seems counterintuitive. As far as general election chances, their favorability metrics are probably the best concrete indicator of electability that we have; for example, in today's Quinnipiac polling, Sanders' favorability is 51-36 favorable, while Clinton's is 37-58, nearly as bad as Trump's. Regardless of the arguments about Sanders not being attacked yet (some of which are addressed in that article I linked earlier), Clinton's 58% unfavorable rating really concerns me with respect to our chances in the general if we nominate her.

I know everyone hates these general election matchups, likely with good reason, but according to that same poll, Sanders' lead on Clinton vs. the Republicans only continues to grow - Sanders beats all of the Republicans while Clinton loses to all of them.posted by dialetheia at 2:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

I would assume quidnunc kid would appoint an all-MeFite cabinet, so I'd just like to remind everyone of the positions available (per Wikipedia)...
...
Secretary of Labor

We're a global operation, why not also have a Secretary of Labour? They could job share.

Secretary of Homeland Security

I'll take this job if I'm allowed to shut down 60% of my operation and request a big budget cut.posted by phearlez at 2:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I honestly believe disenfranchised millennials and technology will be the key to winning this election.

I've spent a career in insurance, finance, banking, &c. IT with most of the time with audit responsibilities, and I haven't seen anything to have a whole lot of confidence in the infrastructure used to tabulate votes, so it may be that this election cycle boils down to "who has the better Black/Grey Hats" to either steal an election or prevent the other guy from stealing it...posted by mikelieman at 2:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

It means I know that public transport isn't something designed to allow "poor" people to come to "nice" areas and rob houses.posted by garius at 2:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [15 favorites]

Yeah, I never would have guessed how many people would end up liking Sanders more than Clinton - it seems counterintuitive.

I dunno. Our national unconscious sexism explains a lot of it I think. Clinton has the cultural problem with "hard" women working against her. Sanders looks more the grandpa role which we're trained to think of as pretty harmless. While they're not that far apart in age, Clinton isn't allowed to soften in the way we expect grandmothers to.

This primary season has evoked a lot of emotions for me. Mostly, though, I seem to be bouncing back and forth between "I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you" and "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!"posted by audi alteram partem at 2:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I've spent a career in insurance, finance, banking, &c. IT with most of the time with audit responsibilities, and I haven't seen anything to have a whole lot of confidence in the infrastructure used to tabulate votes, so it may be that this election cycle boils down to "who has the better Black/Grey Hats" to either steal an election or prevent the other guy from stealing it...

Right, there's that aspect as well, although that's a whole lotta unknowns there.

I was referring more to the use of social media and Bernie software and the proliferation of smartphones to create a bottom up grassroots movement in a way that wasn't quite possible a decade ago. That plus an angry and passionate youth base...posted by kyp at 2:57 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think they're both extremely flawed as liberal politicians

Can you elaborate further on what you see as extreme flaws for both candidates? Always curious as to what other people are thinking.

It wasn't my comment, but it jumped out at me too. Isn't everyone extremely flawed? It's part of being human. The only perfect people are in Ayn Rand novels.posted by kanewai at 3:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Come to think of it, there are "perfect people" in a lot of novels... just not many GOOD novels.posted by oneswellfoop at 3:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

A swarm of bees will be an incarnation of the Mahadevi according to one text. So that would be one way of putting God(ess) in the oval office.

Of course, Republicans would have a fit:
Are they really American bees? Or are they really African bees or Mexican bees?
Can we really trust a woman in the Oval Office?
One that lives with multiple men?
Can we trust them to be unbiased regarding the religious rights of wasps?posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

"Yeah, I mean I volunteered for the Killer Bees 2016 campaign because I really liked their sting-everything-to-death platform. And I thought they handled themselves well in the debate, swarming all over Trump's face like that. But to be honest I was kind of disappointed by how centrist they became once the primaries were over. Plus they're clearly in the pocket of Big Honey, which I guess should have been obvious in retrospect."posted by dephlogisticated at 3:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [21 favorites]

I'd like to be Secretary of Energy. First I'll revoke oil company subsidies and transfer them to renewables, and then use the rest of the money to build my solar generator satellites that in no way can be turned into orbital microwave cannons, really.posted by mephron at 3:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

President Swarm of Bees visited a hornet's nest today for the first time since taking office, in a controversial move the Senate Majority Leader called "divisive."posted by prize bull octorok at 3:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Almost every comment in this thread is noise or a derail.
...which makes it the best political thread of THIS election season.posted by oneswellfoop at 3:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [23 favorites]

Are we keeping the other thread going so that this one can focus on bees?

Keeping to the important topic, how have bee voting demographics changed since colony collapse disorder came about? Will they respond to environmental issues this election?posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 3:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Polling by the AP, AP-ary polling if you will, indicates that the highest concern within the bee electorate is opposition to drones being sent into war zones.posted by XMLicious at 3:51 PM on February 18, 2016 [30 favorites]

I dunno. Our national unconscious sexism explains a lot of it I think. Clinton has the cultural problem with "hard" women working against her. Sanders looks more the grandpa role which we're trained to think of as pretty harmless. While they're not that far apart in age, Clinton isn't allowed to soften in the way we expect grandmothers to.

If you look at the demographics, Sanders' lead is overwhelmingly from younger voters. I think it's a lot more likely that plenty of under 40's have been royally screwed over by the current system their entire adult lives and think Sanders is a better bet to change that, vs young people are a lot more sexist than older people.posted by kersplunk at 3:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [24 favorites]

[Folks, I have no idea what you're on about re: bees, but it seems to be a pretty massive derail - can we all let it go? Thanks.]posted by restless_nomad at 3:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

Is it cool if it combines both bees and one of the candidates like this facebook post from Bernie Sanders?
Making a buck on bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides, no matter what the consequences, is a formula for ruin of our food supply and our environment.
If we don't call a halt to this, who will?

Sanders: "Everything the president does is wonderful, she loves the president, he loves her and all that stuff. And we know what that's about. That's trying to—win support from the African American community where the president is enormously popular. But you know what? I have enormous respect for the president. He's a friend. We have worked together. I think he has done a great job in many respects. But you know what? Like any other human being, he is wrong on certain issues."

Agreed. I was dumbfounded when Clinton stooped to that tactic (equating Sanders's honest critiques of the president's policies with Republican-style attacks on Obama the man) in the last debate. It came across as not only disingenuous, but cravenly pandering. I hope she doesn't go back to that well in the future.posted by Atom Eyes at 4:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

I'll put myself for Secretary of Labor. I'd talk a lot about the proletariat, while growing an impressive beard.posted by lmfsilva at 4:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

vs young people are a lot more sexist than older people.

I suppose it depends on the young people you hang out with but there's no shortage of millennial dudes who are outwardly liberal and feel massively disenfranchised by The System and also are eyeball-peelingly sexist, both of the proudly misogynistic and the totally clueless varietiesposted by prize bull octorok at 4:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [20 favorites]

All the left wing, or liberal economists, greatly respected, have said that Bernie's economic plans are not going to work without a massive sum of money to fund them, money it seems, that is not present or likely to be raised.posted by Postroad at 4:11 PM on February 18, 2016

It came across as not only disingenuous, but cravenly pandering. I hope she doesn't go back to that well in the future.

The thing that I am seeing more and more in this whole mess is that the Clinton campaign is seriously running a by-the-book marketing-failure 101 game. At least we aren't (yet) seeing Hillary out "among the common people", doing things like wind-surfing, or maybe skeet shooting, or the next episode of how not to pander. And we aren't even into the general.posted by daq at 4:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Biden on Trump with Maddow: "In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. I do think he can win the nomination, but he can't win the election."posted by Drinky Die at 4:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I dunno. Our national unconscious sexism explains a lot of it I think. Clinton has the cultural problem with "hard" women working against her. Sanders looks more the grandpa role which we're trained to think of as pretty harmless. While they're not that far apart in age, Clinton isn't allowed to soften in the way we expect grandmothers to.

If you look at the demographics, Sanders' lead is overwhelmingly from younger voters. I think it's a lot more likely that plenty of under 40's have been royally screwed over by the current system their entire adult lives and think Sanders is a better bet to change that, vs young people are a lot more sexist than older people.

There is definitely sexism among voters, because we live in a massively sexist society, and that infects all of us, young and old. But I think it manifests more subtly here and is intertwined with other substantive issues about the candidates - more like, we react much more harshly to a woman politician who engages in what some (many) see as dirty, self-serving, double-crossing "typical" politician-like behavior than we would to a male politician who does the same (ahem Bill Clinton). And perhaps (I think this is a lot less pronounced) we react more warmly to a male politician who presents us with very idealistic and (at times, to some) unrealistic and a bit crunchy granola realness than we would to a similarly situated woman politician (is there a corresponding example? Warren is very different from Bernie in this way.)posted by sallybrown at 4:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

Yeah the reality concerning the economic policies of Sanders (basically forecasting 5% productivity growth every year for a decade and other completely unreliable projections) make me feel like he's being intentional in presenting a misleading message or he is surrounded by economic advisors that are clearly outside the norms of economic thought.

Promise economic change but be realistic about the impacts or you risk the disillusionment that has surrounded Obama in regards to his campaign promises of 2008.posted by vuron at 4:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Oh man, 2016 is too much for me. Trump is about to landslide win South Carolina after taking on directly the Republican field, George W. Bush, and also the Vicar of Christ.posted by Drinky Die at 4:27 PM on February 18, 2016 [21 favorites]

I know it's not a Cabinet position, but I'd like to be considered for Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service of USDA.

Pro: I'm an agricultural scientist.

Con: I don't like attending meetings, so I'll probably spend most of the day in my office drinking coffee. My bee-proof office.posted by wintermind at 4:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

I was dumbfounded when Clinton stooped to that tactic (equating Sanders's honest critiques of the president's policies with Republican-style attacks on Obama the man) in the last debate. It came across as not only disingenuous, but cravenly pandering.

I didn't really see it as pandering. She was a cabinet member in his administration and is running on a platform of continuity. And some of Sanders' support is from people feeling disappointed about Obama or even that he's a failure. In more ways than one it feels like the Sanders campaign is a do-over of eight years ago.posted by FJT at 4:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah the reality concerning the economic policies of Sanders (basically forecasting 5% productivity growth every year for a decade and other completely unreliable projections) make me feel like he's being intentional in presenting a misleading message or he is surrounded by economic advisors that are clearly outside the norms of economic thought.

Promise economic change but be realistic about the impacts or you risk the disillusionment that has surrounded Obama in regards to his campaign promises of 2008.

I think economics and economists' predictions come across as squishy to people at this point, after the past few decades of economic predictions that range all over the map. Every election cycle we hear "notable economist A says Candidate X's policy is unrealistic and will bankrupt this country!!!" and "notable economist B says Candidate X's policy will save this country!!!!" and "notable economist C says there is no way to determine what Candidate X's policy will do!!!" It's hard for most people to sort the wheat from the chaff and figure out which economists are hyping candidates vs. hyping unrealistic personal theory vs. making sincere but unreliable predictions vs. making reliable but very conservative predictions vs. on and on and on.posted by sallybrown at 4:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

All the left wing, or liberal economists, greatly respected, have said that Bernie's economic plans are not going to work without a massive sum of money to fund them, money it seems, that is not present or likely to be raised.

Defense Secretary Grayson kills the F-35 program ( $29,000.00 a minute ) on his first day, and we have all the money we need for everything else.posted by mikelieman at 4:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [16 favorites]

Oh man, 2016 is too much for me. Trump is about to landslide win South Carolina after taking on directly the Republican field, George W. Bush, and also the Vicar of Christ.

Not having drunk the Koolaid, this is shaping up to be the scariest election I have yet to see.posted by y2karl at 4:45 PM on February 18, 2016

All the left wing, or liberal economists, greatly respected, have said that Bernie's economic plans are not going to work without a massive sum of money to fund them, money it seems, that is not present or likely to be raised.

Those economists are critiquing this analysis and growth forecast by Gerald Friedman, who is actually a Clinton supporter and not associated with the Sanders campaign at all (though I imagine they were happy to see his analysis). The CEA advisors' analysis doesn't say anything about whether Sanders' policies are unworkable, just that they wouldn't necessarily lead to the growth that Friedman predicted.

Financial Times Alphaville argued against those criticisms on historical grounds: "his supposedly “extreme” and “unsupportable” forecast implies American output will return to its previous trend just as Sanders would be finishing up his second term, in the third quarter of 2024." In other words, those critics are assuming that American output will never return to its previous trend due to structural forces, which seems equally unsupportable in the absence of a crystal ball.

And some of Sanders' support is from people feeling disappointed about Obama or even that he's a failure.

I get why she's doing it (although the obvious "How dare you speak ill of our great and wondrous leader?! language" was way over the top). But a lot of people rightly see problems with the Obama administration and trying to shame them won't win them over. He was a failure in many ways. As all presidents are to their supporters.posted by downtohisturtles at 4:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

All the left wing, or liberal economists, greatly respected, have said that Bernie's economic plans are not going to work without a massive sum of money to fund them,

I've read the Friedman report, and I didn't see anything obviously ridiculous about it in a mathematical sense. However, I'm not an economist, and devil in those models is always in the assumptions. It's worth reading if all you've seen are the synopses in the media or online.

acrasis, I even know the RL of the Bee Lab, I'm highly qualified for this post!posted by wintermind at 4:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Not having drunk the Koolaid, this is shaping up to be the scariest election I have yet to see.

I am like a baby elephant, frolicking in the Koolaid, sucking it up and spraying it all over myself in gleeful showers of sweet schadenfreude. I cannot stop laughing at every new idiocracy irruption.

I agree this is a scary election for America, but I like to think, in my moments of Koolaid Komedown, that it's scary in the way that a massive pus-filled carbuncle is scary when it finally bursts and begins to eject blood and filth all over the place. Nasty, body-horror terrifying, but ultimately good for the patient, as long as there's a modicum of grown-up medical attention paid to it afterwards.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]

okay but what if the carbuncle bursts and under it is a lump of fresh raw pink skin, and there's a couple little bumps on it, and it kind of makes the lump look like a face, and the face kind of looks like Ted Cruz, and oh god Ted Cruz's face is growing in your skin, Ted Cruz has joined to your flesh, Ted Cruz is inside you oh god oh god its eyes are opening it's giving you that creepy sad smile and talking about God oh god oh god ohgodohgodOHGODNONONONONOOOOOOOposted by prize bull octorok at 5:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [27 favorites]

Really cancel F35 and economic miracle? Especially when defense appropriations are almost inevitably designed to be next to unkillable by placing parts of the projects in about 100 different congressional districts.

I typically don't mind outlandish economic projections but wildly unrealistic projections start getting into snake oil territory and that is expected out of Republicans but less so Democratic candidates.posted by vuron at 5:09 PM on February 18, 2016

I typically don't mind outlandish economic projections but wildly unrealistic projections start getting into snake oil territory and that is expected out of Republicans but less so Democratic candidates.

No other candidates' plans are being exposed to this level of scrutiny at this point, either, though. I mean, Hillary Clinton doesn't even have a health care plan for us to critique. And I'd love to see these same economists lay into Ted Cruz's flat tax plan, for example.posted by dialetheia at 5:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

wildly unrealistic projections start getting into snake oil territory and that is expected out of Republicans but less so Democratic candidates.

Agreed. I was dumbfounded when Clinton stooped to that tactic (equating Sanders's honest critiques of the president's policies with Republican-style attacks on Obama the man) in the last debate. It came across as not only disingenuous, but cravenly pandering. I hope she doesn't go back to that well in the future.

I'm not really concerned about Sander's outlandish economic projections because he was the mayor of a town and didn't destroy it. He isn't afraid to think big but scale down to reality. However, the last debate left me thinking well of Clinton's domestic policy and thinking well of Sanders's foreign policy (although I always think well of people who call Henry Kissinger a war criminal).posted by acrasis at 5:20 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

The first national poll showing Sanders leading Clinton came out today: 47% Sanders to 44% Clinton, with full crosstabs here. "The last two Fox News polls show Clinton’s drop-off has been most striking among women (she has gone from 28 points ahead of Sanders to just 3 points up, for a shift of minus 25 points), whites (-13 points), and regular Democrats (-14 points)." He's also really improved his standing with "nonwhite" voters to Clinton 53, Sanders 36. It looks like they don't have big enough sample sizes for Black and Latino voters to be able to break them out separately, unfortunately. This could easily still be an outlier poll, of course.posted by dialetheia at 5:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Left leaning economics is pretty rare in the US outside of some academic programs. Neoliberal economics is pretty dominant no matter what. If we accept anyone that accepts keynesian principles as being arguably liberal (for the US) then the label can be more expansively applied even to economists employed by investment bankers.posted by vuron at 5:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is a little O/T, but I'm watching Rachel Maddow's interview with Biden, and man, Biden would have had this wrapped up by now. He's so good.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:27 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

He'd be the youngest Democrat in the race (since O'Malley dropped out).posted by FJT at 5:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

The Court has decided to delay the case on Obama's eligibility until after the election, feel the people should have a voice in the decision.posted by Drinky Die at 5:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

I suppose it's too early for pundits to speculate about a Dem combined ticket, but I'm recalling Ron Howard's Apollo 13 and the scene in which a ground control nerd shouts above a fray--

CONTROL TECH
-Whoa, whoa, guys! The power's everything. Power is everything.

GENE KRANTZ (FLIGHT DIRECTOR)
- What you mean?

CONTROL TECH
- Without it they don't talk to us, they don't correct their trajectory, they don't turn the heat shield around... we gotta turn everything off. Now. They're not gonna make it to re-entry.

How Sanders and Clinton accept the other as VP certainly has its intrigue, but I'm already of the opinion neither alone will likely defeat Trump.posted by lazycomputerkids at 5:37 PM on February 18, 2016

I'd vote for a Michelle 2-for-1 deal in a goddamn heartbeat.posted by box at 5:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I feel like yes, blasting Trump into space in an unpowered rocket might be a way to defeat him, but I have this nagging sense I'm misreading your commentposted by prize bull octorok at 5:40 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

The only possible combined ticket is Clinton/Sanders, not the other way around. Clinton wants to be president whereas Sanders merely wants to alter the way the country is run.posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 5:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Re: Economic projections, any sort of long-term economic prediction is like a 14-day weather forecast - an educated guess based on a bunch of numbers that are constantly changing. Some get it right, others wrong, and there's a bunch of people who believe rain dances work. All it takes is another major bank or two saying they made another oopsie to tank the economy again.

I mean, I've seen "credible" Doctors of Economy here predicting a x% tax increase would allow earnings of millions in the end of the year. Me, with my doctorate in OpenTTD, said a value added tax increase, with wages not going up with inflation, along major increases in rents and services, in a very unstable job market would repress the revenue from taxable goods below what was expected before the increase... and the guy who loves trains got it right.

A lot of economists are as good as astrologists... or just lie. That people still use their opinion without a lavish use of salt and another spices is irritating.posted by lmfsilva at 5:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

Anytime I catch a Biden interview during this election cycle, it's a goddamn breath of fresh air.posted by defenestration at 5:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump's rise in popularity among independent voters and even Reagan Democrats is pretty alarming. With his attacks on W it seems he is already willing to pivot to the center.

If Trump can tap into nativist frenzy and the right and left and co-opts a centrist but populist economic stance then he becomes a much more dangerous nominee. He is still a total asshat but that is seemingly not a deal breaker for most of the electorate.

Increasingly it looks like a combination of Clinton and Sanders or Warren would be useful in disarming Trump as a threat.posted by vuron at 5:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton wants to be president whereas Sanders merely wants to alter the way the country is run.

Which is easier to do from the Senate (or, really, anywhere) than the VP. He's not young enough to get a second bite at the apple so I don't see him going for it.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:47 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I've said it before, but a Clinton/Sanders ticket would give me real hope. It gets Bernie a seat at the table and it's the most electable option we have. I wish they'd realize that before things get too ugly to reconcile.

It's interesting to note that the things that have allowed the Republican base to finally move away from certain viewpoints that were previously far-right extremist purity tests during the run up to the nomination are, well... racism, xenophobia, and bigotry.posted by defenestration at 5:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Sanders would never accept a VP role, it's pointless and powerless by design, and he'd rightly see it as once again being relegated to the back of the room.

Plus both of them are not exactly young, they're both going to have to balance some concerns about their age with a younger VP pick, which was seemingly the whole point of OMalley hanging around.posted by T.D. Strange at 5:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

Kasich is really boring right now and doing nothing to prevent me from changing the channel. Should have started with Trump.posted by Drinky Die at 5:51 PM on February 18, 2016

Unfortunately most neoliberal economists hide behind so much obfuscated calculus these days that it's hard to understand their models much less refute them. We definitely need a new model for economics in the US but the gate keepers at most academic programs have a lot invested in the status quo and a lot of conservative money has gone to paying for professors in the top economics programs.posted by vuron at 5:51 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

Anderson Cooper demands Kasich not move out of his small blue circle in the stage because of the lighting.posted by Drinky Die at 5:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I've said it before, but a Clinton/Sanders ticket would give me real hope. It gets Bernie a seat at the table and it's the most electable option we have. I wish they'd realize that before things get too ugly to reconcile.

Absolutely the best of all possible outcomes, I reckon, as I've said before, too. Trump carries on destroying the Republican party but gets the nomination, together Clinton and Sanders unite the Dem electorate and utterly defeat Trump, the veil of business-as-usual since Reagan at least is finally ripped down, Supreme Court is firmly left for the first time in decades, and provided American doesn't tear itself apart in the aftermath, we all (Americans, and, you know, the rest of us) get one last good chance to steer a reasoned course before our entire civilization goes down the toilet.

I'm with you there, stavros. My big hope right now is this: that whoever doesn't get the Democratic nomination goes all in on rallying their supporters around their former opponent. And I hope he or she is successful in doing so.posted by defenestration at 5:58 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

I think unfortunately both Clinton and Sanders will need someone younger in the VP spot, in case they can't run for a second term (or decide not to) due to age or illness. I always kinda figured that's why Warren would agree to take it (along the lines of the rumor that Biden would only run for a single term and then pass the baton to her). After what happened with Reagan...posted by sallybrown at 5:59 PM on February 18, 2016

(I apologize if that's ageist, but things tend to go wrong more frequently and more quickly at Clinton and Sanders' ages, especially with the stress of that job.)posted by sallybrown at 6:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton is going to attack Sanders so hard over the coming weeks and months that picking him as a VP candidate (if she gets that far) will be out of the question.posted by uosuaq at 6:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

Sanders would never accept a VP role, it's pointless and powerless by design, and he'd rightly see it as once again being relegated to the back of the room.

I feel like he'd do it if it was a way to (a) beat Trump or Cruz and (b) keep the President's ear for the next 4 years if nothing else. If he gets to the point where winning is unlikely, he could help the party by doing this or destroy it by going third-party, and we know he doesn't want to do that.

My dream ticket would be Sanders with VP Clinton... but I'd take either one.

I have to admit age will be an issue though.posted by mmoncur at 6:02 PM on February 18, 2016

I wish they'd realize that before things get too ugly to reconcile.

The what-if match-up seldom take into account electoral math. This would be fine fine ticket, but most likely a losing ticket. Maybe not, since Hillary might be able to deliver some Southern states, but Sanders wouldn't bring any she'd really need. Both of 'em would do better with picks that actually shored up their weaknesses. And neither is that for the other. Just won't happen.

I'd also feel a bit cheated. Why have a primary process if all you are going to do is pick the candidates without any real regard to who's running? I'd said it before, but I am jealous of the plurality of options the GOP has. Sure, more should have dropped by now, and a lot of their debates have been crazysauce, but at least they had more choice.posted by cjorgensen at 6:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Ah, crap, that live stream I just posted cut out after the event started. Sorry guys... looking for another...

update: er, it's back up now, but I would expect further unpredictability from this channel...posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:02 PM on February 18, 2016

Eh, I'd characterize his response a bit more wishy-washy than that, roomthreeseventeen. I'd be interested to hear Clinton's thoughts on it too.posted by defenestration at 6:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sanders and Clinton both still do a good job of hitting the refrain "We agree on a lot of things, and either one of us would be better for the country than any of the Republican options." I'm less worried about the ability of two savvy politicians to handle the basics of party politics and support the eventual winner than I am about some of their supporters.posted by GameDesignerBen at 6:08 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

Yeah, but he hedged that by saying, if we found out we could have gotten information from their phones that would've stopped an attack, etc, etc...posted by defenestration at 6:09 PM on February 18, 2016

I do really appreciate Sanders's attempts to put things into context. I wish more people would attempt that. It's maddening sometimes when people I support don't, and buy into the framing of the question being asked of them.posted by defenestration at 6:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Groans when Sanders re-used his "I'm not the one who ran against Obama" thing.

The what-if match-up seldom take into account electoral math. This would be fine fine ticket, but most likely a losing ticket. Maybe not, since Hillary might be able to deliver some Southern states, but Sanders wouldn't bring any she'd really need. Both of 'em would do better with picks that actually shored up their weaknesses. And neither is that for the other. Just won't happen.

Maybe it won't happen. But I'd have been more inclined to agree with your assertion about electoral math before Sanders' dead-heat successes.posted by lazycomputerkids at 6:13 PM on February 18, 2016

Agreed, Room 641-A. With Rubio-bot and groans like that, I think this is the first presidential election cycle in my lifetime where repeated lines like that not only don't help, but can be actively harmful.posted by defenestration at 6:13 PM on February 18, 2016

The NY and NH locations doom a combined ticket unfortunately. The conventional wisdom is still you need to combine 2 separate regions.

Not to mention that both are older candidates (less of a concern with a younger VP) and that both are white (for some values of white) which fails to address some of the concerns of PoC. Bill Clinton might be an honorary Black President but that definitely does not extend to Hilary.

Unfortunately the election is based upon the electoral college and that means the victor will almost certainly be dictated by how the candidates do in relation to some very focused demographics in a small handful of battleground states.

Ohio
Florida
Colorado
Wisconsin

Seems to be the likeliest for determining the 2016 election which means how can Clinton or Sanders deliver to scared rust belt factory workers, Latino in Florida and the Southwest, and Urban African Americans in key battleground states where turnout is always unpredictable.

Sanders is doing well among young cohorts which seems hopeful for Wisconsin (although seriously why does Wisconsin skew so conservative recently?) and Colorado but it seems like Clinton has better strength in Ohio and Florida. So it's really unpredictable and right now it's unclear if a Trump can target those scared white blue collar workers in Ohio and Florida and make up for his likely weakness among minority voters.posted by vuron at 6:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Left leaning economics is pretty rare in the US outside of some academic programs. Neoliberal economics is pretty dominant no matter what. If we accept anyone that accepts keynesian principles as being arguably liberal (for the US) then the label can be more expansively applied even to economists employed by investment bankers.

but see, the ideology involved is a lot simpler than that. being on the left means acknowledging that capital and labor are in conflict because of the way capitalism works. when you choose to be a director of a giant bank or a highly-paid hedge fund consultant you are choosing a side and it isn't the left one.posted by ennui.bz at 6:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

Chuck Todd is a class A dickhead so I figure he's going to continue to be a dick to both candidates. Not excusing him in any way but he seems to be dickish to just about everyone.posted by vuron at 6:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

He's very good at cutting to the chase when explaining things. As long as it doesn't involve numbers.posted by Room 641-A at 6:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

As someone who would gladly support Clinton or Sanders, I must say that I'm extremely pleased Sanders is running and doing so well. Either he gets the nomination, or he forces Clinton to the left. Watching these Democratic town halls and debates has been a very heartening experience.posted by defenestration at 6:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

The way things have been going, vuron, I wouldn't be surprised if the usual calculus doesn't apply this year in anything like the way it has in the past, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it does, so I am totally willing to accept that a pair-up might not be the best way to ensure a win come November based on numbers-not-emotions.

I can't say this enough - unlimited kudos and thanks to those early Black Lives Matter protesters who charged onto the stages with Bernie.posted by sallybrown at 6:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [33 favorites]

Yes, totally agreed sallybrown. And I'm so glad Sanders reacted in a much better way than some of his supporters at the time. My respect for him—which was already very high—went up even more.posted by defenestration at 6:22 PM on February 18, 2016

That was a very, very white kid asking about "African-American" issues. I reiterate my comments from the other thread: this election cycle is (among many other things), a demonstration of the power of #BlackLivesMatter.posted by tivalasvegas at 6:23 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

I wonder how many questions to the Republicans will ever include intersectional feminism?posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

That's cool the idea that intersectionality between class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc all having possible impacts on personal outcomes needs to get wider acknowledgement among national level policy makers. That these concepts are being discussed openly in a presidential debate rather than academic circles is really encouraging for the nature of this race and political discourse in general.

Not that pundits will want to abandon their dependence on two party dualism.posted by vuron at 6:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Let's be real folks, that was a dude reading right from a Clinton campaign talking point.

Let's remember this from this exchange: Sanders wants to end mandatory minimums, he wants to end marijuana prohibition. Clinton opposes both of those things.posted by Drinky Die at 6:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [16 favorites]

Hey, it's Gilmore and Waters. Come on!posted by box at 6:25 PM on February 18, 2016

Personally, I thought it was a well asked question, well answered. Your cynicism is showing, Drinky Die.posted by defenestration at 6:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yes, it was a perfectly crafted question played exactly in tune with Hillary's recent speech. There's a difference when a message comes spontaneously from a protestor whose life depends on it and when it comes in carefully rehearsed talking point form.posted by Drinky Die at 6:27 PM on February 18, 2016

And people call me cynical, yeah the audience is probably seeded as all hell but still I like the question and I hope that people are asking questions in good faith.posted by vuron at 6:27 PM on February 18, 2016

Good questions, good answer. If they are going to do these Town Hall style formats the questions should be real questions and not simply puff pieces.posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on February 18, 2016

I mean, at least wait until we hear the questions for Clinton. If they end up being "Tell us how you became so awesome?" then you might have a point. I expect they will be similar to Sanders, though.posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I guess it could be a Clinton campaign talking point, but it's also going to be the line of attack in the general -- and more than that, it's a fair question that people are going to have and that he is going to have to have a good response to if he wants to win their vote.

Fair enough. During the BLM protests, I remember it being something discussed on this very site. Whether it's become a talking point or line of attack, I think it's worth discussing. And it gave Sanders a chance to answer it well, and I'd say he did.posted by defenestration at 6:29 PM on February 18, 2016

ok but this is obviously a talking point, Sanders corrected her on the number she was going for when she stumbled over it! Ha.posted by tivalasvegas at 6:29 PM on February 18, 2016

I mean, they are fielding a lot of questions from Hillary supporters, and I believe he said he was one.

I hope they do the same to Hillary -- questions from Sanders supporters. Otherwise it's gonna look a little sketchy (but not something I would put past MSNBC).posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:30 PM on February 18, 2016

I mean, at least wait until we hear the questions for Clinton. If they end up being "Tell us how you became so awesome?" then you might have a point. I expect they will be similar to Sanders, though.

I'm not implying the audience is stacked yo, this is how all questions are in this format. Have y'all never watched one of these before?posted by Drinky Die at 6:30 PM on February 18, 2016

That guy did use an actual talking point in his question. It's a fine question and Bernie gave a good answer. It doesn't mean he's a shill but he used some of that language when he wrote it.posted by Room 641-A at 6:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Has anyone asked Clinton a question yet? This stream keeps cutting out, but it's been all Bernie .. Which helps Bernie a lot, but seems odd.posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 6:32 PM on February 18, 2016

I like how they're hitting us over the head with "Democrats support Latinos!" Univision hates Trump so much; it's beautiful.posted by leotrotsky at 6:33 PM on February 18, 2016

It's a town hall, they go one at a time.posted by leotrotsky at 6:33 PM on February 18, 2016

Has anyone asked Clinton a question yet? This stream keeps cutting out, but it's been all Bernie .. Which helps Bernie a lot, but seems odd.

It's not a one on one thing, they ask questions of Bernie and then later Hillary gets equal time.posted by Drinky Die at 6:33 PM on February 18, 2016

Actually rolling back mandatory minimums is getting quite a bit of support across Democratic and Republicans at state (if not quite federal levels yet).The reasons for bipartisan support are complex and not exclusively related to racial equity but there seems to be increasing support for doing something about it.

Decriminalization of marijuana usage also seems to be getting increasing bipartisan support for complex reasons but I suspect it's still going to be a hard sell at a federal level. I general think that states rights reasoning tends to be used in a lot of harmful ways but in terms of drug criminalization I think it's been doing okay work.posted by vuron at 6:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I wonder how many questions to the Republicans will ever include intersectional feminism?

I'm watching the CNN town hall for the team. AMA.

So far, a woman asked John Kasich about domestic violence and he rambled to "imagine if your mother or daughter or sister was beaten up! It's horrible!" forgetting he was talking to a real live woman. who didn't need an imagined scenario of violence happening to someone else, which is presumably why she asked the question.

Ah. The only other one I saw like this was dem vs repub and the questions were spread across both.

Yeah, they never seem to do those for the primaries. Don't know why not, once you have them cut down to the last two at least. It's a very different challenge when you share the stage.posted by Drinky Die at 6:37 PM on February 18, 2016

I want to see Rubio-bot get a intersectionality question sometime and see if his OS has been upgraded to general election compatibility mode.posted by vuron at 6:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

If you're a terrible person like me and would rather watch the Repub trainwreck for the lulz than Bernie'n'Hillary again: here.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:39 PM on February 18, 2016

I completely disagree with his policies in general but he seems like a decent guy. If he wasn't a scion of a political family he'd probably be a great high school principal.posted by vuron at 6:42 PM on February 18, 2016 [33 favorites]

Todd said earlier the audience is screened to be 50/50, Hillary will face similarly challenging questions. You do have to convince the other side if you want to win a primary.posted by Drinky Die at 6:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I completely disagree with his policies in general but he seems like a decent guy. If he wasn't a scion of a political family he'd probably be a great high school principal.

Jeb! doesn't skeeve me out the way W always did, and he seems sincere, but man, he's also semi-coherent and worryingly uncertain of his own ideas, listening to him right now. I think high school principal is about right.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I missed the part about the audience being 50/50. I thought we were going to pretend it was impartial. I stand corrected.posted by Room 641-A at 6:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

High School Principal nails it. And I think it's a level of governance with which he'd be confident and competent.posted by defenestration at 6:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Did I mishear or did he call it "Socialist Security"? Probably misheard but really he should start calling it that.posted by tivalasvegas at 6:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Schiavo thing makes him eternally skeevy to me. Can't think of anything else when I listen to him.posted by Drinky Die at 6:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I missed the part about the audience being 50/50.

It isn't 50/50. They said of the audience, 50 people are declared HRC supporters, and 50 are declared Sanders supporters.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

It is really confusing following here. Does everyone else have two TVs going?posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:51 PM on February 18, 2016

As far as the people in the seats, they said there were an equal number of Sanders and Clinton supporters, but also a lot of Democratic party members (I forget exactly how it was phrased), so I would presume it skews towards Clinton.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:51 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

He doesn't skeeve me out the way W always did, and he seems sincere, but man, he's also semi-coherent and worryingly uncertain of his own ideas, listening to him right now. I think high school principal is about right.

About SCOTUS, he said he felt like the President should use any tools he has to do what he feels like he needs to do (paraphrase), and sighed for a second like "this'll cost me."posted by zutalors! at 6:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I feel embarrassed to have criticized them at the time. They sharpened his campaign greatly.

Maybe? He was already talking about their issues. I saw him in Boone, Iowa prior to the stage jumping and he was talking about income disparity, prison incarceration of blacks, unjust drug laws, and police militarization, and this was to a roomful of white people.

I supported their message (still do), but it seemed like they unfairly targeted his campaign. You're still not hearing Clinton talk about some of these issues, and when she does it sounds hypocritical and disingenuous.

I would like to have seen them targeting all campaigns with their message.

Maybe I missed it when they jumped on the stage at a Clinton rally or at a Rubio rally, and if so I withdraw my comments.posted by cjorgensen at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2016

Ah crap, I forgot all about this.posted by homunculus at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2016

The two events happening in the same thread is really the best of the Internet.

It is, thanks for putting up the thread. I knew it was gonna be fun as soon as it popped up.posted by Drinky Die at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2016

The two events happening in the same thread is really the best of the Internet.

I am intrigued by the town hall format with the Republicans as I can see what makes their supporters like them a little easier, though I strongly disagree with all of them. I'm likely to ragequit before an hour of Trump though.posted by zutalors! at 6:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah I forget about the Schiavo thing for some reason it's like he's cast a spell that causes it to fade from my mind after about an hour even though I'm extremely pro- right to die.

cjorgensen, I don't think BLM's concern was making sure they disrupted all candidates equally or something like that. Choosing Sanders was strategy—a tactical move.posted by defenestration at 6:55 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

I strongly prefer these townhalls to debates. You get to know these folks a lot better when they aren't playing offense or defense.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:55 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I am behind, but I love the way that doctor's face lit up when Sanders thanked him for being in our country and helping fellow human beings. Sanders' answer was indirect, but in the end, it was "I'm going to treat you like a person worthy of respect," which is a valid response to "what are you going to do about Islamophobia?"posted by Ruki at 6:57 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

The GOP program on another channel is a real distraction here.posted by Room 641-A at 6:57 PM on February 18, 2016

Is that now an accepted pronunciation of the word ration?

No. I love Bernie and all that he stands for but that pronunciation has got to stop.posted by tivalasvegas at 7:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

we should just use an interleaving scheme. R program comments post on even numbered seconds, D program comments on odd numbered seconds. that will clear things up.posted by indubitable at 7:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

High School Principal nails it. And I think it's a level of governance with which he'd be confident and competent.

It's interesting word to pronounce in an idiosyncratic (read: wrong) way, too. For me, at least, such words are usually words I've read before but haven't heard spoken.posted by defenestration at 7:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I can't watch tonight, but I've heard (from fairly, er, not-unbiased sources) that he's doing well. What do you all think?posted by teponaztli at 7:06 PM on February 18, 2016

Ugh this filler music on msnbc.com is the worst music.posted by defenestration at 7:06 PM on February 18, 2016

I listen to the same songs that we play during our meetings.posted by box at 7:06 PM on February 18, 2016

Yeah it's weird. Is it Brooklyn? New England? I've lived in the Midwest and in Ontario and I've not heard that pronunciation before.posted by tivalasvegas at 7:07 PM on February 18, 2016

I liked the music during the last Republican debate. My partner and I were talking about all the things it sounded like: waiting in line for a ride at a theme park, a Japanese car commercial, hold music, the soundtrack to a PBS documentary about that Apollo mission where they played golf on the Moon.posted by teponaztli at 7:07 PM on February 18, 2016

Now I'm sad about the dolphin. At least with most wildlife selfie nonsense you always have the vague hope that it ends with "asshole eaten by bear or mauled by moose" but that is just depressing as fuck.posted by vuron at 7:08 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

We're like Bill Clinton--you have to emote.posted by box at 7:09 PM on February 18, 2016

Clinton says Senators should be able to use the rules to filibuster SCOTUS nominees. What the eff.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:09 PM on February 18, 2016

Introverts like to learn.posted by box at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016

Oh man. I pronounce rationing like stationing too. I had NO IDEA that was wrong. Good thing it isn't a word I use often.posted by hilaryjade at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm really blown away by the mental and physical stamina of these candidates, especially given both of their ages. To always have to be on and lucid and projecting energy and enthusiasm is no easy task. I'm quite a bit younger and I would be done in like a week.posted by defenestration at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [26 favorites]

Does anyone else feel like it's too heartbreaking to listen to Sanders say all these things because he might not win and then what?

I will be so disappointed if he doesn't win, it's scary. I hate feeling this hopeful. It hurts.posted by Tarumba at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

Or gotten confused and try to do brain surgeryposted by tivalasvegas at 7:11 PM on February 18, 2016

Jeb is an introvert! Seriously people, read Quiet by Susan Cain. It's about so much more than the Internet memes about reading and cats that really put me off introversion stuff.

Introverts create goals? Some do I'm sure but that's not exactly a known trait at all. Does he really know what a introvert is? Odd.posted by futz at 7:12 PM on February 18, 2016

OK I'm switching to the Republican side (I mean, CNN... I mean, turning the cha... whatever.) Because my husband wants to hatewatch.posted by tivalasvegas at 7:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

according to Susan Cain, introverts are better at focusing on goals and persistence toward those goals than extroverts.posted by zutalors! at 7:13 PM on February 18, 2016

Both Clinton and Sanders hedged on the Apple encryption question. The national security complex and corporate America are at odds and they're confused about which side to take.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

I will be so disappointed if he doesn't win, it's scary. I hate feeling this hopeful. It hurts.

It'll be okay. He is doing what he can to stand up for the people who need someone to stand up for them. And he will keep on doing that win or lose, and so should I, and so should you.posted by tivalasvegas at 7:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [18 favorites]

Clinton suggested that Sanders wasn't familiar with the past 2 Democratic presidents' accomplishments because he was a newcomer to the party.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:17 PM on February 18, 2016

introverts are better at focusing on goals and persistence toward those goals

No clue who Susan Cain is but I think she didn't talk to many strong introverts. Which is probably difficult given that we don't really like to talk to strangers about our goals and persistence levels.posted by tivalasvegas at 7:17 PM on February 18, 2016

Clinton suggested that Sanders wasn't familiar with the past 2 Democratic presidents' accomplishments because he was a newcomer to the party.

You know what would be fun is to have all the candidates provide their Myers-Briggs results to the public.

That way we can safely eliminate any personality types that should never ever be trusted with nuclear launch codes.posted by vuron at 7:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Humble trump to start the evening. His face will get redder and redder as the evening goes on.

And I am sorry but there is no way that the trumpster is a christian. Agnostic or atheist for sure.posted by futz at 7:18 PM on February 18, 2016

Rationing, like that, is not a New England thing. My MIL, who had a similar New York Jew accent, did throw a long A into words that didn't need them. Like Pharoah. This caused me much confusion during my first Passover with the in-laws.posted by Ruki at 7:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Clinton suggested that Sanders wasn't familiar with the past 2 Democratic presidents' accomplishments because he was a newcomer to the party.

It's just some shade thrown at him because he isn't actually a Democrat.posted by Justinian at 7:20 PM on February 18, 2016

No clue who Susan Cain is but I think she didn't talk to many strong introverts.

She wrote an incredibly well researched book about it. The persistence thing I wrote related to studies, not people she talked to. Also she did talk to introverts...it's a really interesting book. I dont identify as an introvert but got a lot out of it.posted by zutalors! at 7:20 PM on February 18, 2016

Seriously if people are kind of put off by my comment, which it seems like, read Quiet and you'll likely find that it's well researched and has something you can connect to.posted by zutalors! at 7:22 PM on February 18, 2016

She doesn't seem to get it -- or she gets it, and she knows how damaging it is -- the transcripts issue is not going to go away. It's not a good look for her.posted by barnacles at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016

Weird. Comcast is telling me to subscribe to CNNE (?) while Trump is on screen. Didn't do that for Jeb!posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

They keep talking about San Bernardino in the Republican Town Hall when there was a shooting right there in South Carolina by a terrorist. That's shameful.posted by zutalors! at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Actually there have been a lot of good research about introverts but the Quiet book is really solid. There are some really interesting insights in that book and increasingly I've been looking for ways to really maximize the ability to hear introverted voices in meetings rather than just have meetings dominated by the alpha extroverts who love to hear their own voices and leave no oxygen for the rest of the room.

Introverts are absolutely essential to the success of most projects and getting them involved earlier when their expert knowledge is critical is really insightful. Sometimes it's as simple as looking for the yes in the no when they are questioned about feasibility of projects and then using their insight to revise project goals.posted by vuron at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oh! Add win to my list. And loser.posted by futz at 7:30 PM on February 18, 2016

First question for Trump: how would you work constructively with people who you might disagree with?

Answer: We need toughness because ISIS (it took him about a minute to say this). I can be politically correct, people love me. I will put Republicans and Democrats in a room and make them deal. "I believe in compromise where I win."posted by tivalasvegas at 7:30 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Trump segment is on another cable subscription tier. The Donald wants to make sure he has only richest, classiest viewers for his town hall.posted by indubitable at 7:31 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, she said she'd release the transcripts, surely she will.posted by bink at 7:31 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Ooh someone asked trump to be specific. Too bad it won't happenposted by futz at 7:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Is that specific enough for you?" asks Anderson Cooper, not convinced.posted by zutalors! at 7:35 PM on February 18, 2016

Trump: "You'll get your little doctor." But what if I want a big doctor?posted by homunculus at 7:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump question the second, from a health insurance broker: What is your exact plan to replace Obamacare?

Answer: There's no way I can summarize this. At one point there was a clause about refugees getting handouts. I think he ended up somewhere around letting insurance companies sell across state lines, etc.

I'm really trying to hear where Trump is trying to go but it is honestly word salad!posted by tivalasvegas at 7:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump is Harold Hill from the Music Man. There is trouble right here in River City... err America and if you get on board the Trump Express we will make America Great again. You know with rapist Latinos being substituted for pool hall concerns.posted by vuron at 7:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

Wait, really? I heard it as (heavily, heavily paraphrasing) "I'll definitely release whatever I have...when everyone else does too. Because everyone has given speeches to private groups. Senator Sanders has given speeches to private groups, too, you know."posted by nobody at 7:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Jesus Christ. Anyone want to go out and die in the street with me right now? He's an pompous airbag. He has zero solutions.posted by futz at 7:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Third question is about the "Bush lied, people died" comment.

He's walking it back. "A lot of people think that... there are people that think that."posted by tivalasvegas at 7:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

he is walking it back but not as far as I would have thought.posted by zutalors! at 7:40 PM on February 18, 2016

Now Trump's pointing out the problems with refugees in Europe, etc., and connecting them to Iraq. All the money & lives that we've lost in Iraq, and we have nothing to show for it. "It was a horrible mistake -- and Iraq didn't knock down the World Trade Center." Shade on Saudi Arabia. Passing allusion to secret documents. "He [Bush] went into Iraq and did something that, I think, destroyed the Middle East."posted by tivalasvegas at 7:40 PM on February 18, 2016

No he totally has solutions but they pretty much stop at building a great wall between the US and the filthy Mexican barbarians, talking tough to China and presumably a WWE table and ladders match if Putin gets uppity.posted by vuron at 7:41 PM on February 18, 2016

Saudi Arabia connection to 9/11. Basically sticking to his guns about calling Bush a liar but refusing to now use the word liar even though he's tossing the liar word salad.posted by futz at 7:43 PM on February 18, 2016

Trump is hilarious. He's an idiot's idiot, completely self-absorbed, constantly telling everyone around him how great he is, desperately trying to hide his insecurity. He makes GWB look like a goddamned scholar, something I never ever would have guessed would be humanly possible. I am loving every second of this.

Clinton is kicking Bernie's butt tonight. Weird cause he did so much better in the last town hall, it's why I went from undecided to his camp. As a Bernie supporter, I'm glad everybody changed the channel to Trump. :)posted by Drinky Die at 7:45 PM on February 18, 2016

If millions of Americans think he's a perfectly fine choice to be their commander in chief, well, so be it.

Hah, I did switch over... Drinky Die, would you mind explaining why you feel Clinton is kicking butt tonight?posted by defenestration at 7:47 PM on February 18, 2016

I turned off Clinton after she bombed the first three questions, tbh.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 PM on February 18, 2016

She knows how to play the crowd better. And the audience is stacked in her favor, so she keeps getting a lot of applause.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:48 PM on February 18, 2016

Jeb! doesn't skeeve me out the way W always did, and he seems sincere, but man, he's also semi-coherent and worryingly uncertain of his own ideas, listening to him right now. I think high school principal is about right.

I know I have mentioned it in another thread, but someone upstream commented on how great Biden seemed and another mentioned how much better some pols are when they're not campaigning. My encounters with Jeb(!) are that to a T. I find his ideals icky (and I am NEVER gonna stop beating the drum about how he was cutting addiction support paths and funding at the same time his daughter was coping with addiction... but she had a connected and well-funded parent to help, unlike so many of his constituents) but he wasn't an incompetent governor.

He's got about as small a quantity of Obama derangement syndrome as you can have and still be allowed in the party now, and before he was running, to hear him speak? I wager half the dems in Metafilter would have traded a kidney to have that guy as one of the possible presidential winners. You'd still want the dem to win, but you would think maybe you could be okay with the next four years. I guess his handlers know that's not the personality that wins an R primary in the modern climate but he sure as shit can't seem to manage to simulate the nutter requirements convincingly.

So, overall - fuck that guy. But it's been fascinating to have lived with him as my governor for a while, seen him speak to small crowds and sound like not a complete fruitbat with no charisma, and then... this. I'd feel bad for him if he wasn't harmful.posted by phearlez at 7:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, we'll get the government they deserve.

Well, that is, unfortunately, the way democracy works. Like they say, a terrible system, but the best one available.

Sanders supporter here. I really wish he'd go into more specifics about his plans. He was asked for some tonight on a few points and didn't really go deep on details. I think Clinton, despite the fake/overly manufactured vibe I've always gotten off of her, explains herself better.

The whooping after everything she says is pretty grating though. I guess I'm becoming an old man, but as a society it'd be nice if we toned it down on whooping. Clapping serves the purpose.posted by picea at 7:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

That was my read as well. He's not substantively taking things back to the extent that he could be perceived as "backing down" but he apparently is a bit worried that he hit a nerve or miscalculated the amount of goodwill that Republican primary voters have for GWB. I think he'll be tiptoeing around that particular line of attack at least until Jeb! gets out of the race.

He's laid the seeds for a full-on rejection of Bushism in the general, though, and that should play well with moderates....posted by tivalasvegas at 7:48 PM on February 18, 2016

Yeah it's going to lead to a funny future with President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho and Brawndo for everyone but it's hard not to see Trump being a serious candidate that the forces of anti-intellectualism are not just ascendent but actually on the verge of absolute triumph.posted by vuron at 7:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

HILLARY COUGHING, SOUND THE DRUDGE ALERT!posted by Drinky Die at 7:49 PM on February 18, 2016

If millions of Americans think he's a perfectly fine choice to be their commander in chief, well, so be it.

we can call ourselves the "sobeit nation". Trump can be a mini Putin.posted by futz at 7:50 PM on February 18, 2016

It's great that Bernie's specificity on progressive issues is encouraging people to ask her very pointed questions on what she can deliver. I'm a Bernie fan, but if she wins the primary she'll be much further on the left than anyone ever expected her to be.posted by kyp at 7:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Hah, I did switch over... Drinky Die, would you mind explaining why you feel Clinton is kicking butt tonight?

I feel that she is answering with more empathy and detail and with a lot more energy. She is just working the crowd and the camera excellently. There are some infuriating moments for me as someone who can sniff out the bullshit, but that's stuff I don't think most of the audience will notice. (for example, everybody endorses me! Not gonna mention that's only when the members don't vote!)posted by Drinky Die at 7:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

If Clinton wins the primary, she'll be done pretending to be much further on the left than anyone ever expected her to be.posted by uosuaq at 7:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [16 favorites]

"I raised women's rights everywhere I went. I mean it was never a dealbreaker or anything when it was time to arm the local dictator, but I brought it up!"posted by Drinky Die at 7:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

It's funny, I'm still watching and I think that Bernie is doing better... she's very masterful at not answering people's questions, which I think Bernie did a lot less of. There have been moments where she really sounded like she was pandering, too.

But in general, yeah she's a better public speaker.posted by zug at 7:58 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump won't eat at McD's because "cleanliness matters"posted by futz at 7:58 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

The arrangement of the people in the room is kinda giving me second-hand claustrophobia. I don't know how either of them stands there and answers these questions under the bright lights. I'd be running right off the stage.posted by sallybrown at 7:58 PM on February 18, 2016

I do think her knowledge and grasp of foreign issues really shines through in a way Sanders simply can't match. Would he even know who the leaders she's talking about are?posted by Justinian at 7:59 PM on February 18, 2016

Yeah, she's good at "owning" the room. (Switched back—just in time to see the end. Heh.)posted by defenestration at 7:59 PM on February 18, 2016

Bad plastic surgery = loss of confidence. Voice of experience there.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:59 PM on February 18, 2016

Also I wish for them both to get some sleep and load up on the vitamins. There's a long race ahead.posted by sallybrown at 7:59 PM on February 18, 2016

The CNN town hall segments always end with personal questions. I don't think it's an awful idea, the MSNBC one ended very abruptly for both of them.posted by Drinky Die at 8:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Having seen a lot of both of these town halls I simply do not understand people who will vote for one of the Democratic candidates but not the other in the case of a primary loss. I realize I'm not going to change their minds so I guess I won't try. But the contrast between both Sanders and Clinton and buffoons like Trump or Cruz is so stark that it blows my mind that people can't get behind either of the Democratic candidates in the face of that level of danger to the presidency.posted by Justinian at 8:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I want a supercut of Trump just saying 'I know people' 'people are calling me' 'they love me' 'I'm a success' and so on. Literally every single question he 'answers' includes some variation on how Very Important People Think He's Just Great Really Tremendous or His Great Success.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

The politicfact intern watching this Trumptasrophe just passed out in a pool of vodka and vomitposted by T.D. Strange at 8:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

am i posting too much? sorry if i am.posted by futz at 8:04 PM on February 18, 2016

Don't worry it's not any less fragmented when you're watching it.

I hope that sixth-grade teachers across the land are transcribing this... discourse? series of utterances? for extra-credit diagramming sentences on their next English test.posted by tivalasvegas at 8:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

A secondhand anecdote apropos of nothing: I once dated a PA for the Apprentice. Apparently Trump is incredibly vain and spent the majority of his downtime sitting in a chair and silently looking at himself in the mirror.posted by defenestration at 8:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

Trump would replace the presidential limo with a gold plated Trans Am.

I'm not sure you can even parody Trump because the actual reality is too outrageous to actually be believed.posted by vuron at 8:09 PM on February 18, 2016

As someone who works with my husband, I call bullshit on her earlier assertion that she knows the last two D presidents better than Sanders, especially given the insinuation that he's not really a Democrat. One of those presidents is her husband! Sanders is way more objective on that count. Further, working in the financial industry, I call bull on her position on Wall Street. I didn't like Kerry because of his tendency to say what was popular at any given moment. She has the same problem. Oh, Countrywide. Oh, SSM. No, you were wrong and you were backpedaling. (So was Obama, but he's not running. He did eventually do something about it.)posted by Ruki at 8:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I don't think BLM's concern was making sure they disrupted all candidates equally or something like that. Choosing Sanders was strategy—a tactical move.

But at the time Sanders was barely coming out of a media imposed blackout. I mean, he was the guy who was running be stood no chance, wasn't electable, and was on their side. Seems like if you wanted sympathy or expose for the BLM movement that there were few choices worse that Sanders to get your message out. Even tactically it did;t make much sense. Hell, people thought it a GOP maneuver to bring attention to Sanders. Even the mainstream press wasn't for certain they were actual BLM movement representatives.

I guess if you want to give them way more credit than I do you can suggest that by attacking a marginal candidate it will bring focus to that candidate and force that candidate to adopt your message and surge to the top thereby bringing you message to the fore! I just don't see that.

Personally, when I want to protest something I don't pick the guy who is already on my side and who no one is really paying attention to. It'd be like having a drone protest at a synagog.posted by cjorgensen at 8:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Lurkers are great! Tremendous! I built my empire on the backs of lurkers. Lurkers love me. They support me in email. Lurkers don't lie like non lurkers.posted by futz at 8:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [13 favorites]

Personally, when I want to protest something I don't pick the guy who is already on my side and who no one is really paying attention to. It'd be like having a drone protest at a synagog.

Unless the specific tactic employed was not "achieve maximum visibility" but rather "influence someone who knows what to do after listening"posted by an animate objects at 8:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Unless the specific tactic employed was not "achieve maximum visibility" but rather "influence someone who knows what to do after listening"

Does anyone else feel like it's too heartbreaking to listen to Sanders say all these things because he might not win and then what?

Then he still has two more years on his current Senate term. And probably a pretty easy path to a third Senate term in 2018, if he wants it. And likely a more prominent voice than before.posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

This is the first time that I've really seen Donald Trump talking in a relatively casual, low-intensity setting (I don't really watch reality TV so I have no idea how he comes across outside the directly political context).

I think my overall impressions are:

--Donald Trump thinks that the key problem in American politics is lack of leadership. In a way, he's close to a technocratic-type critique of partisanship; but where technocrats want to bring science / data / technology / "disruption" to governance, Trump believes that a strong leader who can knock heads together, get people into a room and get deals done is going to "make America great again", get past the paralysis and build workable solutions.

--He feels he's the best person to do this because of his connections and his personality. He's proven that he can get people together to make deals that are going to be acceptable to him, and so if he's working for the American people he will be able to get things done for them. Ultimately he doesn't think he needs to get into the details of what solutions might look like (e.g. desired policy outcomes) because his argument is based on the American people trusting that he is going to work in their best interest against the economic and political elites, and will defend the US against threatening foreign powers or actors (including terrorism, immigrants and rising economic powers like China).

--He would be pretty great to have beers with. He's... witty, and has a breezy, crass, slyly mocking affect that could be really fun.

I always thought BLM interrupted more Sanders rallies because his events were larger and more likely to be accessible to protesters, whereas Clinton's were smaller and always very locked-down. Sanders didn't even get Secret Service protection until mid-February, I don't think. (His code name is Intrepid!)posted by dialetheia at 8:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Every time Trump talks about low or high energy, I get the same feeling as listening to a hippie tell me about the triboluminescence of this amazing crystal for just $10, man.posted by T.D. Strange at 8:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think Trump indicated he's a teetoller now so maybe not so much fun at a bar.

On the other hand he probably still has a residual high from doing mountains of coke in the 80s so maybe it's all good.

Keep in mind that America elected Dubya twice because he was seen as down to earth and relatable despite being from an incredibly wealthy and well connected political family. So if Trump can tap into that truthiness and likeability factor that propelled Dubya and throw in some nativist panic he could be successful.

Ultimately he's yet another strongarm despot that is masking their more loathsome aspects in a nationalistic guise just like Putin.

But you gotta think that he'll do a interesting job redecorating the Oval Office. I'm thinking a black velvet painting with him lounging half naked with a draped American flag on a bear skin rug surrounded by bald eagles.posted by vuron at 8:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

It will be interesting to see how Sanders' doggedness-over-slickness strategy keeps him afloat. I'll be voting for him because his politics align with mine, but I also wonder how much myself and others are voting for him as a rejection of Clinton and her methods.

It's not an overly scientific way of thinking, but I like Bernie partly because I don't feel like he's running because he craves the massive ego boost becoming President would engender. He feels like a devoted civil servant trying to change the system. With Clinton, it feels like it's about her fulfilling her personal destiny first and improving the country second. Certainly that's how 100% of the Republican candidates operate, but I think progressives are realising that it doesn't need to be like that for our side. It's about the work that the President can get done and not their star power or myth-making. In this way, Clinton looks sort of obsolete to me.

It's a hard thing for Americans to get over, because it's so baked into the culture, but I think some people are moving towards a better appreciation of the power of the group over the individual, and finding there's no shame in it.posted by picea at 8:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

--He would be pretty great to have beers with. He's... witty, and has a breezy, crass, slyly mocking affect that could be really fun.

As a woman who looks enough like what Trump thinks a Muslim or Hispanic might look like, no thanks.posted by zutalors! at 8:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

he probably still has a residual high from doing mountains of coke in the 80s

Holy crap, that literally just twigged in my brain. I don't know if Trump did coke back in the 80s, but, you know, I did, and that self-aggrandizing motor-mouthed non-sequitur silence-fearing stream of barely-connected words he was pouring out in the town hall tonight sounded precisely like someone who was naturally voluble but also coked out of their freaking head.

Huh. No wonder he was able to scam people out of so much money back in the day. Whether he was high or not, he spoke their cocaine-language!posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

Ultimately he's yet another strongarm despot that is masking their more loathsome aspects in a nationalistic guise just like Putin.

Which is why he might be able to do enough damage in 4 years to become America's Greatest President For Life, like Putin.posted by T.D. Strange at 8:44 PM on February 18, 2016

But you gotta think that he'll do a interesting job redecorating the Oval Office. I'm thinking a black velvet painting with him lounging half naked with a draped American flag on a bear skin rug surrounded by bald eagles.

Excuse you, Mr. Trump is classy, okay? Very classy. As a matter of fact many prominent people have told him he's the classiest.posted by sallybrown at 8:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Presumably VP Aaron Schock will reign in President Trump's florid decorating tendencies with something more appropriately baroque.posted by tivalasvegas at 8:48 PM on February 18, 2016

The real winners tonight on CNN are Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon, who both look hawt.posted by zutalors! at 8:49 PM on February 18, 2016

I would like to throw my hat in the ring for MeFi Attorney General, mainly because I can't run for Treasury until I know all the words to Hamilton. However, I would respectfully suggest that more than one person should be appointed as MeFi Attorney General so we can argue over the correct pluralization of Attorneys General.

Also: The only correct answer for a Republican candidate to "What kind of music do you like?" is FREEDOM ROCK, MAN,posted by Dr. Zira at 9:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I think Trump indicated he's a teetoller now so maybe not so much fun at a bar.

He says he has never had a sip of alcohol or any drugs. His brother was an alcoholic and died young, so I believe Trump when he says that had an impact on him. His brother is a sad reminder that no matter how much privilege you have in life there are still a lot of things that can bring you down.

Dubya, the last "have a beer with" guy, also does not drink because of his earlier issues with substance abuse.

My mom, who went to the Trump side, watched the R town hall and her response was "smh." This is good. This indicates that right of center historical Dems who appreciated Trump's straight talk are getting disillusioned.posted by Ruki at 9:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I would like to throw my hat in the ring for MeFi Attorney General, mainly because I can't run for Treasury until I know all the words to Hamilton.

I hope it means 'smell my hand'. That seems like a rational response to The Trump, although I must admit it doesn't make much sense contextually.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:34 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

My mom actually responded to my private message. She's realized Trump is a megalomaniac. She was ok with Kasich except for his plans to defund Planned Parenthood, which is a deal breaker for her. Jeb was bland. Oh, you Republicans, keep on doing you.posted by Ruki at 9:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

smack my head aka facepalmposted by vuron at 9:38 PM on February 18, 2016

Shaking my head. For a long time, I thought it meant so much hate. Either way.posted by Ruki at 9:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Co-worker of mine used "smh" constantly to reference another coworker named Matt. I thought it meant "shitty Matt hack" for a long time and was greatly confused when I saw it elsewhere.posted by MysticMCJ at 10:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I completely disagree with his policies in general but he seems like a decent guy. If he wasn't a scion of a political family he'd probably be a great high school principal.

I give the man more credit than that. I think he'd still make a great high school principal.posted by el io at 12:36 AM on February 19, 2016

Just can't get past the John Ellis Bush! Bush thing.
How nobody else brings this up I don't know.
I'd be calling him Double Bush or some shit.
Probably a good thing I'm not in charge of a campaign.
Well, I'd probably improve all the Republican ones.posted by fullerine at 2:06 AM on February 19, 2016

Wow... I just checked Wikipedia. I had no idea Jeb! had the same naming convention as GOB Bluth!posted by mmoncur at 2:17 AM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

If Jeb had had some of Gob's rumbly baritone and idiot confidence, he'd wouldn't have disappointed The Brokers. Poor Jeb. His tears are like wine to me, but I still have empathy for his pain.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:36 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

I just figured it out....Trump is Carl from AquaTeenHungerForce but with billions.posted by ian1977 at 3:46 AM on February 19, 2016 [10 favorites]

But you gotta think that he'll do a interesting job redecorating the Oval Office. I'm thinking a black velvet painting with him lounging half naked with a draped American flag on a bear skin rug surrounded by bald eagles.

Say what you want about the tenets of fascism, at least it's an ethos.

Highly functional psychopaths, on the other hand, are not beholden to any ethos in particular and will subscribe to a belief system only when it furthers their own personal goals. Whether that's fascism or communism or capitalism is really secondary to them.

I'm sure that Mr. Trump would have thrived just as much in a communist country. Perhaps even more.posted by sour cream at 5:22 AM on February 19, 2016

Trump is more like a morning shock jock than anything else I think. Snappy zingers, bulldog personality, pivots mid conversation, speaks only in sound bites.

I am just thankful he decided to spread his baloney on the republican side. Can you imagine how gross it would be if he crammed himself onto the democratic stage?posted by ian1977 at 5:44 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, I couldn't watch the town hall, but this just showed up on the NBC news website:
Poll: Sanders Outperforms Clinton in Hypothetical General-Election Matchups

Well, I look forward to all the Clinton supporters who are big into tactical voting to throw their weight behind Sanders now.posted by entropicamericana at 5:45 AM on February 19, 2016 [15 favorites]

I don't know if Trump did coke back in the 80s, but, you know, I did, and that self-aggrandizing motor-mouthed non-sequitur silence-fearing stream of barely-connected words he was pouring out in the town hall tonight sounded precisely like someone who was naturally voluble but also coked out of their freaking head.

Russ Baker's whowhatwhy website linked the 1980's Trump biopic last month. Link here. Trump was always an evangelical straight edger even when the whole country was as high as a kite.posted by bukvich at 5:59 AM on February 19, 2016

I don't know if Trump did coke back in the 80s, but, you know, I did, and that self-aggrandizing motor-mouthed non-sequitur silence-fearing stream of barely-connected words he was pouring out in the town hall tonight sounded precisely like someone who was naturally voluble but also coked out of their freaking head.

> I always thought BLM interrupted more Sanders rallies because his events were larger and more likely to be accessible to protesters, whereas Clinton's were smaller and always very locked-down.

Perhaps, but Trump rallies were also disrupted and his rallies were even bigger.

>Unless the specific tactic employed was not "achieve maximum visibility" but rather "influence someone who knows what to do after listening"

I guess, but I don't think so. Again, Sanders was already talking about these issues. They are literally part of his platform: end The War on Drugs, address mass incarceration, decrease income inequality, end militarization of police, end debtor's prisons, CEOs (not marijuana users) in jail, accountability, make education accessible, etc. He was preaching this stuff not to Baptist churches, but crowds of white folk. I would even suggest he was (and is) the only one out there doing this.

In my mind, at best, the protestors brought a little attention to DLM, at worst they managed to alienate allies. They also looked like a plant and there's still doubt about whether or not they were the "real BLM," since some of the BLM apologized after. Me? I pick my targets and I don't say sorry.

I think anyone that follows my comment knows I fully support BLM, and I fully support Sanders, so maybe I just don't want to see friends fight, but I thought this was a bullshit move on the part of BLM. All it did was give talking points to the wrong side about how BLM can't engage in civil debate and Look, Sanders is White Power!

>Or "Sander's is in town, and Hillary isn't. Let's do this thing now."

I liked this counterpoint. Paul Krugman is wrong: "For the first time since his strident defenses of globalization ruffled some fair trade feathers in the 1990s, Paul Krugman is in a protracted debate with the American left."posted by dialetheia at 11:19 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Crackpot Realism of Clintonian Politics - "What they miss is these right wing Democrats have profoundly shaped this status quo. Bill Clinton’s treatment of poor people was unimaginable before him and par for the course after him. Obama’s treatment of ordinary homeowners would have been a preposterous fictional story of campy villany. Now it’s just how the world works. "

Your theory of politics is wrong - "I support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. I don’t support Sanders because I think he is brilliant in some academic way. I don’t support Sanders because I am particularly impressed with the details of his policy proposals, although they are not nearly as hopeless as some self-proclaimed technocrats make them out to be. A democracy is not a graduate seminar.

dialethia, that pull quote--I just have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Especially that first sentence? Do you know what it means?posted by angrycat at 12:01 PM on February 19, 2016

It means that they get big results because it's a big program, just as the second sentence says. The whole letter is worth reading.posted by dialetheia at 12:04 PM on February 19, 2016

and doesn't it give you pause that Krugman of all people is like eh this won't work.
and doesn't it give you pause that if governors don't get behind his free college plan in a totally unrealistic way, that won't work

on preview: um. what Krugman has been writing about is not his concern that Sanders's plan will get big results. it's that Krugman has said that the plans won't work.

I'm pretty educated but not economic jargon friendly enuf to parse what Galbraith said specifically about the Friedman paper.

But, saying that something is getting big results because it's a big program--it's like the few bits of non jargony language in the letter--and I have no fucking idea what the point of that sentence is. Do you?

Because my initial bemusement at Sanders is quickly souring into annoyance, mostly because when you have a Nobel Prize winner or whatever the economic prize is called criticizing with great vigor Sanders promises, and the responses are so WTF or tepid or impossible to parse or written by a Salon staff writer, I tell you, I want to start screaming about people being bloody irresponsible.

Seriously. Free college! Great, sign me up! Oh, well that plan well never work! But it's a great idea! Wheee.posted by angrycat at 12:13 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

Because my initial bemusement at Sanders is quickly souring into annoyance, mostly because when you have a Nobel Prize winner or whatever the economic prize is called criticizing with great vigor Sanders promises, and the responses are so WTF or tepid or impossible to parse or written by a Salon staff writer, I tell you, I want to start screaming about people being bloody irresponsible.

Seriously. Free college! Great, sign me up! Oh, well that plan well never work! But it's a great idea! Wheee.

If Bernie Sanders can accomplish literally nothing more than appointing appropriate progressives to SCOTUS, reinvigorating the base while incorporating a broad swath of disenfranchised non-Democrats and earnestly fighting for progress on down-ballot tickets I don't really think Krugman's condemnation makes a lick of difference in the scheme of things.

Bernie's plans don't all have to work for him to totally change the game for the better, for everyone, for the foreseeable future. Clinton doesn't just not promise to do this, she promises not to.posted by an animate objects at 12:22 PM on February 19, 2016 [18 favorites]

angrycat: From what I've read, neither Krugman nor most of the others who've recently so energetically criticized Friedman's economic projections based on Bernie's plans have bothered to argue the specifics. They're mostly dismissing Friedman's (who's said he plans to vote for Clinton) projections out of hand.posted by syzygy at 12:23 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

The letter isn't an endorsement of Sander-nomics. It's just a defense of Friedman, and only on the grounds that it shouldn't be surprising to see large change in a model that includes large moves.posted by Miko at 12:31 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm secretly hoping the Democratic nomination is settled by the time my state primary happens so I can go make mischief on the Republican side. Also so I don't have to choose between Hillary and Bernie.

The letter also points out precedent for Friedman's predictions and notes that they're the conclusions that come from using standard models in standard ways.

In a way, it's reminiscent of Krugman's self-criticism about (IIRC) his predictions w/r/t the financial crisis - he reached the correct conclusion by applying his models and then scaled back his conclusions based on gut feeling. Since he doesn't have any specific criticism of Friedman's assumptions or methods, Galbraith contends that Krugman's doing the same thing again (w/o the comparison to K's earlier mistake). That doesn't look like airheaded dismissal to me.posted by The Gaffer at 12:37 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

But, saying that something is getting big results because it's a big program--it's like the few bits of non jargony language in the letter--and I have no fucking idea what the point of that sentence is. Do you?

Yes, I do, because I read the Friedman paper and their analysis of it. As I said earlier in the thread, the (biased) CEA advisors' main complaint was that Friedman's estimates of growth seemed ludicrously large. They didn't show their work at all, just said that a 5.3% growth rate following major economic stimulus was "grandiose" on its face. Galbraith (a very respected economist) argues that we should expect large results from a large program and that Friedman's analysis seems perfectly consistent with the growth we've seen from other large (rather than incremental) fiscal programs. There really isn't that much jargon in the letter - he's just arguing that not only is Friedman's analysis not ridiculous on its face, but that it falls in line with what we've seen historically when we've made major economic changes.

and doesn't it give you pause that Krugman of all people is like eh this won't work.

Not at all. Krugman isn't some anointed wizard of economics - there are much more left-leaning and equally serious macroeconomists out there, e.g. Piketty, Galbraith, Baker, and I've disagreed with Krugman's views frequently (especially on globalization, where he remains terrible). I think it's better to listen to more than one economist, personally. Re: the single payer critique, it's nowhere near unanimous among economists that it wouldn't work - this analysis argues that it would increase incomes for everyone but the 1%. Whether it will pass congress is a separate question from whether the plan itself would work if enacted, and to me, it's mostly an immaterial question because we still have to start from a stronger bargaining position than where we want to end up, so of course I don't expect (or even want!) their initial proposals to be able to pass Congress. That would mean that we were aiming too low.

What Sanders is doing (and has already done extremely successfully, much more successfully than any other figure on the left in my lifetime!) is shift the Overton window to the left so that we can start from a much better bargaining position. Think about the minimum wage thing: Sanders says $15, Clinton says $12. Who is going to get us a higher minimum wage once we actually get to the negotiating table? With Sanders' rhetoric, we might actually get $12. With Clinton's, we'll end up at $8.50 or something. The same applies to the rest of his policies. No, nobody expects him to pass these programs in his first 100 days - that would be ludicrous. But we will never get there if we don't argue for it and claim it as a goal.posted by dialetheia at 12:39 PM on February 19, 2016 [33 favorites]

I'd like to say that left-of-center capable economist slapfights are one of my very favorite things, so I welcome all additional links on this.posted by The Gaffer at 12:41 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

Gerald Friedman responds: "I get more in terms of GDP, I get a bit of bang out of the healthcare program, because what you are doing is turning premiums paid by working people and turning it into taxes paid by upper-income people. That gives you a boost, especially in the early years."

Professor Gerald Friedman has argued here that, by adopting Senator Bernie Sanders’ economic proposals, the US economy would grow in excess of 5% per year over the next decade. Previously, former Governor Jeb Bush put forward (different) proposals that he has argued would lead to 4% economic growth over an extended period. These kinds of growth outcomes are often dismissed as prima face unachievable given the historical behavior of the US economy. (That’s one way that some readers have interpreted this letter.)

I don't attempt a full examination of Senator Sanders' or Mr. Bush's proposals in this post. Rather, I make three points related to this discussion that don't receive sufficient attention:

There is no technological reason why real gross domestic product (GDP) cannot grow at a materially above-normal rate over the next decade.

Given (1), the relevant issue is: are the benefits of achieving such a growth path higher than the costs of doing so? I suggest that there are good reasons to believe that the answer to this question is more likely to be positive than at any time since the end of World War II.

If the answer to (2) is affirmative, the question becomes: what set of economic proposals will best allow the country to achieve those positive net benefits? As noted above, I don’t attempt a detailed examination of the consequences of Senator Sanders’ proposals or those of Mr. Bush. I only make the broad point that, given current economic circumstances, demand-based stimulus is likely to be more effective than supply-based stimulus.

[...]

To sum up: above-normal growth is always possible. The current data on market prices like interest rates and wages suggest that above-normal growth might well be desirable. The ongoing constraints on monetary policy suggest that we can best achieve that faster growth through demand-oriented policies.

I have found the recent spate of Krugman columns really disappointing. Here are three or four related reasons. For the past eight years, Krugman has been banging the drum over and over (and rightly so) about how well bog-standard economic models performed after the 2008 crash and how we ought to justify economic policy on the basis of economic models that have good predictive records. But what Friedman's paper does is apply a bog-standard economic model to estimate the effects that Sanders' policies would have if they were implemented. Friedman finds that the effects would be very large -- at least initially. A responsible criticism would lay out the modeling assumptions and articulate what is wrong with them. But unlike his discussions of Republican proposals, I don't see Krugman doing that. Maybe I've just missed it -- and if so, someone please point me to Krugman's specific criticisms of Friedman's modeling assumptions -- but I haven't seen Krugman give a clear articulation of what Friedman is getting wrong or why Friedman's assumptions are wrong. I want to see the actual work, here, and a wonk should want to show me that work!

Along with the lack of actual engagement with the details -- where the details are supposed to be the things that matter -- there is a kind of missing-the-point that I find staggering. If you look back at Krugman's columns over the past eight years, you'll see many instances of him complaining about Obama pre-negotiating and getting sub-optimal results. But now that Sanders is staking out a bold (or bold-ish) set of proposals, which one might characterize as starting points for anticipated negotiation, Krugman is effectively arguing that Sanders should pre-negotiate to a more sensible starting point. And to me, it's exactly the same thing in Krugman's attacks on Sanders' push for single-payer healthcare. I mean Krugman has said several times (for example here, here, and here) that single payer is a better system in the ideal case but that it is not politically feasible. But now what he's saying is that it's not economically sensible. That's an important reversal and seems to me to be completely unmotivated. Again, what Sanders is trying to do is to make single payer politically feasible or at least to move us in that direction. Maybe he'll succeed and maybe not. But that shouldn't be the question for economists like Krugman. The question for economists should be what the economic effects would be -- how well the policy would work if it were implemented.posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:50 PM on February 19, 2016 [16 favorites]

And I agree 100% with dialethia - a good negotiator never starts purchase negotiations at the highest price she's willing to pay for an item. Rather, she starts much lower and works her way up. Is this not completely obvious?posted by syzygy at 12:52 PM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]

“Sen. Sanders accepts Clinton’s challenge. He will release all of the transcripts of all of his Wall Street speeches. That’s easy. The fact is, there weren’t any. Bernie gave no speeches to Wall Street firms. He wasn’t paid anything while Secretary Clinton made millions, including $675,000 for three paid speeches to Goldman Sachs,” said Sanders’ spokesman Michael Briggs.

“So now we hope Secretary Clinton keeps her word and releases the transcripts of her speeches. We hope she agrees that the American people deserve to know what she told Wall Street behind closed doors,” Briggs added.

I mean Krugman has said several times (for example here, here, and here) that single payer is a better system in the ideal case but that it is not politically feasible. But now what he's saying is that it's not economically sensible. That's an important reversal and seems to me to be completely unmotivated.

That leaves the argument that Clinton's proposals are more realistic. On health care, how, exactly? Krugman doesn't say.

That might be because she has proposed nothing whatsoever that would seriously advance the state of American health care. Honestly, head over to her issues page and check out the section on health care. There's no plan of any kind to address ObamaCare's rather serious underinsurance problem, let alone bring insurance to the roughly 30 million people who still don't have it. There is some oblique acknowledgement of the problems, but no hint of what to do about it — rather reminiscent of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's set of bullet points about how she would defeat ISIS, the first of which was "defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq."

Or take monetary policy, the single most important economic policy lever. Krugman himself has been consistently (and correctly) arguing that the Federal Reserve's decision to hike interest rates last December was a serious mistake. Sanders is the only candidate from either party who agrees with him on this point. Krugman has not mentioned this, instead attacking him for supporting a bill which would increase congressional oversight of the Fed. Meanwhile, Clinton's economy page does not even mention monetary policy at all.

So whose local campaign is getting a boost for being on the Bernie bandwagon? I'd love to read about some local races where a "socialist" candidate is getting traction as people discover maybe "socialism" isn't the evil force the mainstream politicians and press have painted it as?posted by maxwelton at 1:23 PM on February 19, 2016

It's difficult for me to express how utterly offended I am by Bill's comparison of Sanders supporters to the Tea Party.

As an undecided on the Democratic side, I certainly see a viciousness in Sanders' supporters that bears a resemblance to the take-no-prisoners methods of the Tea Party.

I'm undecided, and I see merits to both candidates, but some rhetoric coming from Bernie's followers gives me pause.posted by rocketman at 1:31 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

Also also ... let me draw a contrast between Republican "magic asterisk" proposals and Friedman's analysis of Sanders' proposals. In the Republican case, when one pushes for an explanation and defense of the asterisk -- for example, Paul Ryan's claim a while back that on his plan, revenue would rise to 19 percent of GDP by 2028 -- one gets, as Krugman put it, "numbers that are simply asserted, not the result of any policies actually described in the 'plan'." By contrast, in Sanders' case, Friedman turned the crank on a standard model and has invited critical discussion of his modeling assumptions. In other words: With the Republicans, there is no work to check; with Friedman, there is. That is an important difference.posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:31 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

I don't want to impose, and you don't owe any of us anything here, but if you are willing to say more, I would like to know which rhetorical moves are giving you pause (and why) and whether you are referring to the rhetoric of Sanders supporters here on Metafilter or the rhetoric of Sanders supporters out in the wider world.posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:35 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm undecided, and I see merits to both candidates, but some rhetoric coming from Bernie's followers gives me pause.

You realize that Bill Clinton is a Hillary supporter, right?

In fact, all of the ugly rhetoric, as far as I can tell, has been from prominent Hillary supporters -- Madeline Albright, Gloria Steinem, Bill Clinton, John Lewis, etc. When someone wants to make a point about the vicious bernie bros they either have to turn to anonymous Twitter handles or outright fabrications.

“So now we hope Secretary Clinton keeps her word and releases the transcripts of her speeches. We hope she agrees that the American people deserve to know what she told Wall Street behind closed doors,” Briggs added.

I'm pretty sure Hillary said that once everyone that had ever given a paid speech had released their speeches firstthen she'd lead the way and not before.

Yep.

Here's the quote:

“Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them.” Cite

Leadership!

I also thought Sanders wasn't going to call for the release of her speeches, so now I am confused. Cite.posted by cjorgensen at 1:45 PM on February 19, 2016

It would be pretty awesome, if she did release her speeches (eventually) and they were all "Look out bankers, can you smell the pitchforks? You'd better think very carefully about how you do business in the future."posted by gofargogo at 1:50 PM on February 19, 2016

It would be pretty awesome, if she did release her speeches (eventually) and they were all "Look out bankers, can you smell the pitchforks? You'd better think very carefully about how you do business in the future."

I would be greatly reassured, yes! Sadly, it doesn't look like that would be the case:

Lament of the plutocrats: "But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop."posted by dialetheia at 1:54 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

It would be pretty awesome, if she did release her speeches (eventually) and they were all "Look out bankers, can you smell the pitchforks? You'd better think very carefully about how you do business in the future."

In fact, according to reporting from Bloomberg News, some bankers refer to her speeches as her "Goldman handcuffs": "Well, we did a Bloomberg news story yesterday, talked to some rich Wall Street bankers, and one of them an ex Goldman Sachs partner said that they actually have a nickname for Hillary Clinton, the fact she’s given so many speeches, made so much money, they refer to it as Hillary’s Goldman handcuffs, which is obviously a reference to golden handcuffs."posted by dialetheia at 1:58 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah me either, but I figure the scriptwriter this season needs a few more gotchas...posted by gofargogo at 1:59 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

Yeah, no nation has managed to get free (or cheap) college going. Fantasyland, that.

Well, the nation of California had free tuition for residents at its non-shabby state university system until they elected a second-rate movie actor as Governor, and he managed to end that.posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:07 PM on February 19, 2016 [18 favorites]

In fact, all of the ugly rhetoric, as far as I can tell, has been from prominent Hillary supporters

Let's be honest, it's coming from both sides. It's easy if you are entrenched on one side to see the other as the only ones who are attacking, but it's there on both. There are plenty of people on the Democratic side who will think you are the devil itself for even entertaining the thought of anyone other than there preferred candidate.

The perception of it is kind of funny to me, though. It seems like the rhetoric from the Clinton side does seem more heavily biased towards coming from celebrities or those with power - "the elite," whereas from the Sanders side, it seems more distributed throughout the voices of those who aren't in power, the "commoners". That's a purely subjective view that may not match reality at all, but it still amuses me.posted by MysticMCJ at 2:09 PM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]

The difference to me is that the people who are being jerks who are on Hillary's side are largely celebrities/big names. The people who are being jerks on Bernie's side are regular people that nobody knows.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:11 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

"I'm not ready for a new one!" she cries when told they needed to vote for a new president.
Awwww I died.posted by zutalors! at 2:16 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

Bill Clinton Says Bernie Sanders Supporters Are Like The Left-Wing Tea Party

people in this thread actually have been pretty decent to me, given how dismissive I've been of Sanders supporters. I mean, I see the favorites so I know I'm going against this thread's general pull, and I appreciate people like dilalethea are still giving me the time of day, given the level of of polite contempt i've been leveling at Sanders supporters these days.

I would buy that this is more a metafilter thing (the niceness) then a Sanders thing, but maybe I'm wrong. I appreciate it nonetheless.

Here's my opinion. We had Bill Clinton after a zillion years of Reagan/Bush. We were excited with Clinton and then morose at the compromises he made, morose that the man didn't have enough discipline to jerk it in the shower rather than get it on with an intern.

And we had Obama. He was and is the package. People at the Harvard Law Review were still talking about his God-like powers. He was a community organizer, He was/is a brilliant orator. He had the support of a lot of the establishment players and then the establishment himself. I guess some people here will argue that he's a warmonger, but I still love my President. I don't think that he wants to hurt people anywhere. I think he wanted to turn the country around from the Bush years.

And now we have Sanders. Great ideas, cool. But for people like me, somebody who is like at the level where they read the NYT daily, and I'm a dunce, so of course I look to Krugman because he has the seal of the NYT approval, and I'm pretty informed compared to most of the U.S.

And I see not the Obama excitement of 2008. I don't see both old and young, college student and NYT columnists, coming around to support Obama. Maybe I'm completely fucking wrong--I'm really sorry if I am--but I don't see it happening.

I see, at least on a superficial level, energy diminish as people examine more of Sanders's proposals. I'm sorry I'm not knowledgeable to dig into the guts of the economic debate and figure this stuff out for myself, but again, maybe Krugman is completely wrong, and I'm completely wrong, but the wind, it feels like it is blowing the other wayposted by angrycat at 2:30 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

I think there's a lot of people working super hard to tell us which way the wind is blowing. Whether any of them have any idea at all is, to my mind, an open question. I have no lack of certainty they know which way they want it to be blowing.posted by phearlez at 2:35 PM on February 19, 2016 [10 favorites]

Friend of a friend on facebook who works at the University of Florida posted this study he's running to determine whether you implicitly favor Sanders or Clinton, I think it's neat:

Hi all,
My lab is running a quick (< 10 mins) study on the Democratic Primary. At the end, you get feedback about whether you implicitly/automatically/non-consciously prefer Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. What fun! It's at the following link in case you're interested: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

I just got a call from a research firm asking about the Virginia primary. The questions were...

Are you going to participate (v likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, v unlikely)
Which party (D/R)
Given D, which candidate (C/S)
Did you come to this conclusion in the last few weeks or earlier?
Impression of Sanders (V fav, somewhat fav, somewhat unfav, v unfav)
Impression of Clinton (same choices)
Do you know when the primary is? (and my response of "yes" was followed up with a request for specifics. I told her March 1 but our absentee opened Jan 15 (!))

then they wanted to know lib/conserv/moderate, year I was born, racial identification

Be interesting to see the crosstab (if it's made available) on primary date knowledge to candidate. As well as how recently C/S supporters made their choice.posted by phearlez at 2:50 PM on February 19, 2016

Correlation does not imply causation etc, but...

I think he wanted to turn the country around from the Bush years.
...
And I see not the Obama excitement of 2008.posted by lmfsilva at 2:50 PM on February 19, 2016

DynamiteToast: that study was a fun little game. It said the opposite of what I feel in terms of candidate preference, but the indicated preference was tied to my performance during the final tasks, which were aligned in a different way than I feel. I think I just got better at performing the task by the end of the experiment.posted by onehalfjunco at 2:52 PM on February 19, 2016

Well, the nation of California had free tuition for residents at its non-shabby state university system until they elected a second-rate movie actor as Governor, and he managed to end that.

Not to mention that every single state of the Union manages to provide free education to students from kindergarten to 12th grade. Is there some magical thing about turning 19 that means we can no longer figure out how to fund these particular students' education?posted by tivalasvegas at 2:58 PM on February 19, 2016 [24 favorites]

And I see not the Obama excitement of 2008. I don't see both old and young, college student and NYT columnists, coming around to support Obama. Maybe I'm completely fucking wrong--I'm really sorry if I am--but I don't see it happening.

arrgh - I swear I know better than that... that's going to drive me crazy now.posted by MysticMCJ at 3:16 PM on February 19, 2016

Yeah, no nation has managed to get free (or cheap) college going. Fantasyland, that.

Pretty sure that's sarcasm, but just for the record: Germany, Finland, France, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia, and Brazil offer free or nearly-free college education. Some of those are not absolutely no-cost, but they're all pretty damn close to free. And that list doesn't even consider the many countries where college is merely very affordable. It's possible, others are doing it, the U.S. would be foolish not to do this. University costs have risen 500% since 1985.posted by LooseFilter at 3:17 PM on February 19, 2016 [14 favorites]

(^ p.s.: why are we even talking about this problem and possible solution? Thank you, Sen. Sanders.)posted by LooseFilter at 3:18 PM on February 19, 2016 [12 favorites]

And I see not the Obama excitement of 2008. I don't see both old and young, college student and NYT columnists, coming around to support Obama. Maybe I'm completely fucking wrong--I'm really sorry if I am--but I don't see it happening.

IIRC, Krugman supported Clinton and was actually one of the most hostile left pundits toward Obama back in 2008 until Obama's candidacy finally became inevitable (that article is from April 08, well past when Obama pulled ahead). I actually remember cursing Krugman daily all through 2007/8 for being so biased against Obama, which is part of why I immediately discounted his similar arguments against Sanders. The same was true of older people at this point in the election in 08, I think - I had a lot of "but he's completely unelectable!!! The country just isn't ready for someone named Barack Hussein Obama!" arguments with older folks in 2008 all the way through to the convention. I think we're just at a really tough turning point in the campaign now that it's clear that we have a real race and that Sanders isn't just running a protest campaign as so many had assumed. We had similar moments in 2008 that probably just look much rosier in the rear-view mirror.

I see, at least on a superficial level, energy diminish as people examine more of Sanders's proposals. I'm sorry I'm not knowledgeable to dig into the guts of the economic debate and figure this stuff out for myself, but again, maybe Krugman is completely wrong, and I'm completely wrong, but the wind, it feels like it is blowing the other way

I disagree with this really strongly - nearly every indicator of movement, from polls to favorability to fundraising to social media, is toward Sanders and away from Clinton at the moment. That isn't to say that he will win, only that by most evidence so far, the more people see of him, the more they like him. I hope this pattern extends to Latinos and Black people, and there is evidence that he's making big inroads with Latinos in NV and with younger Black people. He may yet reach a ceiling to his support, but so far, we just don't know where that will be. So far, everywhere he's been able to do sustained campaigning, his numbers have vastly exceeded expectations.

It's not complicated, it's just that people in the media often don't like the answer. How is he going to pay for all this? He's going to tax the hell out of the rich. He's going to take back some of the income and productivity gains that have disproportionately gone to the 1% and use them to ease the misery of the poor and encourage social mobility by providing free public college education and providing health care as a human right. The social mobility advantages of removing health care concerns from employment negotiations shouldn't be understated, either - I know so many people who can't take risks by trying to find better/higher-paying employment just because they can't afford to risk changing their health care. That's not even to mention how much single-payer would do to encourage people starting small businesses - the prohibitive cost of health care is a huge impediment to entrepreneurship in this country.

The questions on the details of his health care proposals have more to do with the extent of cost savings we could expect to realize if we were able to negotiate costs better with the economy of scale that a single payer plan would give us. Some analyses cite that Medicare hasn't seen those decreases, but Medicare is expressly prohibited from negotiating on those terms. I would turn the question back around on people like Krugman: if not single-payer, what is his answer to controlling health care costs so that aging baby boomers don't bankrupt us? We are being ripped off royally by these industries. We pay many times what other countries pay per capita for health care and receive lower-quality care on average. Obamacare is an improvement, but we still have massive problems with medical debt and bankruptcy, we haven't even approached universal coverage, and we're still paying the highest prices in the world. How can we change that?

There are some really serious questions about what would happen to the private insurance industry if we suddenly switched to single-payer, but I think there would still be a market for private insurance - people who wanted to pay for better coverage than the baseline provided by the government would be free to do so. I worry about the fact that the health care industry is one of our only growth sectors in the whole economy - but that growth is really a bubble predicated on the idea that Americans will continue to pay astronomically higher health care costs than the rest of the developed world.posted by dialetheia at 3:23 PM on February 19, 2016 [36 favorites]

thank you for your thoughtful response. i mean i perhaps obviously have disagreements, but i appreciate your thoughtful replyposted by angrycat at 3:27 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

Not to mention that every single state of the Union manages to provide free education to students from kindergarten to 12th grade.

That's of course with an asterisk, since the quality of education varies greatly from place to place, "free" education doesn't always cover everything for kids (transportation, lunch, school supplies, uniforms), and the US graduation rates are still lagging behind other industrialized countries.posted by FJT at 3:32 PM on February 19, 2016

The Sanders campaign is doing a very interesting social media "push" right now with the #AmericaTogether hashtag that's trending on the Twitter. I really like the innovation. We'll see if it translates to votes.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:35 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

angrycat: "Seriously. Free college! Great, sign me up! Oh, well that plan well never work! But it's a great idea! Wheee."

ChurchHatesTucker: "Yeah, no nation has managed to get free (or cheap) college going. Fantasyland, that."

OMG, thank you kliuless for linking the "There's nothing smart in surrendering bargaining power for policy details," which in turn linked this post titled "Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders, and Medicare for All" - both of which talk about one of my very favorite ideas: if you only ever advocate what you think is practically attainable at a single point in time, you're always going to get worse than that. It isn't a recipe for incremental progress, it's a recipe for incremental concessions. And even if you know there's something you can't get, fighting hard for it doesn't make you a loser or a failure. It's a smart use of your bully pulpit that changes the terms of the conversation and can pull the Overton window back in the right direction.

From that first link:

Roosevelt’s relentless drive to make sure the war created “not a single war millionaire” had made an incredible difference. His refusal to take “no” for an answer on his $25,000 income cap proposal had kept the entire war finance debate revolving around the rich and how much they ought to be paying in taxes. Conservatives didn’t want that debate. They wanted a national sales tax that would shunt the war’s heavy burden onto average Americans, but FDR’s aggressive advocacy for equity never allowed a sales tax to gain traction. Roosevelt would not get all he wanted on the tax equity front. But he did get plenty, enough to deliver against plutocracy a staggering knockdown.

From the second:

The lobbyists for the industry are always there. ... The public doesn’t have lobbyists to work the other side. The best we can hope is that groups that have a general interest in lower health care costs, like AARP, labor unions, and various consumer groups can put some pressure on politicians to counter the industry groups. In this context, Bernie Sanders’ push for universal Medicare can play an important role in energizing the public and keeping the pressure on. ... Frakt reports on a new study that finds evidence that public debate on drug prices and measures to constrain the industry had the effect of slowing the growth of drug prices. In short getting out the pitchforks has a real impact on the industry’s behavior. The implication is that we need people like Senator Sanders to constantly push the envelope. Even if this may not get us to universal Medicare in one big leap, it will create a political environment in which we can move forward rather than backward.

(emphasis mine) I've tangled in heated arguments on this site over and over again in the Obama years (mainly with Ironmouth - sorry for typing so angry!) about the negotiations behind Obamacare, the debt ceiling compromise that cut the budget and didn't increase taxes as would have happened automatically when the Bush cuts expired, and more, and over and over again it kept coming down to a basic debate of "There weren't enough votes in the Senate to get that" vs. "Obama and the national Dems didn't do anything to change the conversation and win those votes." And the rebuttal to that was usually "it never would have worked, so it would have wasted political capital to try because Obama would end up looking like a loser."

But look what's happening this year! There's a democratic socialist calling to break up the biggest banks, raise taxes, fight for single payer health care and universal college, remove mandatory minimum sentencing and relax drug laws, and so on. Nobody would have even bothered considering any of these things seriously four years ago; now he's rapidly gaining popularity and we're having wonk debates over how realistic his plans are for actualizing those goals. And people are still saying they'll never happen, but the Overton window is already shifting. None of the Republican candidates are making noises in public about cutting Social Security, their front runner is trashing the big banks (and politicians "owned" by them) (not very credibly, but obviously because he thinks it'll help him), etc. not to mention that his Democratic rival has had to pivot leftward to respond.

Sanders is "creating a political environment in which we can move forward rather than backward." Whether he wins the nomination or not, that's the lesson I hope we can take away from this campaign. If Hillary gets the nomination, I hope she wins the election, but I also hope that everyone who's been fired up will continue to pressure her and their congresspeople to speak out and to push back and just to FIGHT more instead of getting scared about "what's possible" and buying into GOP framing. And for fuck's sake to open negotiations with WAY more than they think they could get past the Senate and negotiate down from there instead of starting in the goddamn middle, getting dragged to the right, and then tsk-tsking any Democrats who aren't happy about it for their lack of enthusiastic support.posted by cobra_high_tigers at 4:17 PM on February 19, 2016 [33 favorites]

Yep, I'm watching a Sanders surrogate just tear into Hillary Clinton right now on MSNBC. Sanders himself has remained above the attacks; that's his brand. But his surrogates and supporters are slinging mud with the best of them. The idea that the Clinton machine is spewing vile while the angelic Sanders side is just trying to run an above-board clean campaign is hogwash.posted by Justinian at 4:24 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

Justinian, can you give an example of what you consider "mud slinging" to be? Because I haven't heard any sort of comment from the Sanders camp that was akin to "you're going to hell if you don't support Hillary."posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:26 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

What kind of "attacks" though? Can you be more specific? I've found it troubling how people conflate personal attacks (e.g. "so-and-so is a liar") with factual statements ("so-and-so accepted money from x, y, and z").posted by dialetheia at 4:26 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

Well, Sanders himself just came out and said the only reason Clinton is talking up Obama is to ingratiate herself with African Americans. That's a pretty shitty thing to say even if it's not as flamboyant as "going to hell!". And the surrogate I saw just trashed Clinton as, basically, racist for backing the same crime bill that Sanders voted for. Yeah, yeah, I know he voted for it for blah blah blah reasons. But the vote is the same.posted by Justinian at 5:08 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

It's not exactly on the same level as the Hope poster.

It's pretty bad, really. I'm not sure something reminiscent of Soviet iconography is what you want to go for when trying to convince the middle of the roaders that voting for the socialist is the thing to do.posted by Justinian at 5:09 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

﻿ He had a very specific reason for suggesting a Democratic primary in 2012: In debt-ceiling talks with Republicans, Obama proposed cutting Social Security benefits and raising the Medicare age to 67. After initially refusing to negotiate over the debt ceiling, the White House pivoted to a full-scale embrace of austerity in the hopes of taking away the Republican Party’s main talking point ahead of the 2012 election.

Sanders was one of many Democrats standing athwart this rush to austerity, though he did go further than any of his colleagues by suggesting a primary. His remarks were only a minor news story at the time, but the basic dispute is now mapping onto the entire Democratic primary, which has become a battle between progressives who are preoccupied with immediate constraints and compromise and those who seek to change the terms of debate using grassroots pressure.

Obama actually proposed more deficit reduction in the summer of 2011 than Republicans were asking for—$4 trillion instead of the $2 trillion the GOP had been requesting—and at times the White House was reportedly willing to raise revenue only through closing tax loopholes. That meant in addition to the safety net cuts, the Bush-era tax cuts would either be locked in or even lowered in some cases.

This was a monumental diversion from Democratic Party principles. For years, Democrats ran for office on promises not to cut Social Security and Medicare. They railed against the Bush tax cuts in every election cycle since the tax package was enacted. Republicans already enjoyed bashing Democrats for supposed safety-net cuts; one of the most frequently run advertisements of the 2010 midterms noted the Affordable Care Act cut $700 million from Medicare. (These cuts were mainly on the provider side and did not affect benefits, which was never mentioned in the ads.)

I think Marco Rubio's logo is pretty decent. It's not exciting or anything

Kind of sums up the feelings about him on the Republican side pretty well, I'd say. Successful logo.

The first thing I thought when I saw Cruz-flame logo was that the red is overwhelming and cornering the blue. Not subtle.posted by MysticMCJ at 6:12 PM on February 19, 2016

Re: my earlier points about how Sanders plans to fund his programs by reclaiming some of the vast wealth that has accrued predominantly to the 1% over the past 30 years, this series of charts from a piece by Robert Reich in the NYT in 2011 makes the case better than I could ever do in words. I just saw the main chart tweeted with the caption "Millenials know this isn't about 'free stuff'. This is about getting back 'stolen stuff'." I could do without the millenial exceptionalism, but the point stands.posted by dialetheia at 6:12 PM on February 19, 2016 [26 favorites]

The Ted Cruz logo clearly symbolizes the cleansing nuclear fire that will envelop the nation as he strives to show us the true face of his god.posted by indubitable at 6:16 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

Krugman: Too pessimistic about Sanders' ideas about the economy?: "He also states that it is bonkers to assume, like Sanders does, that the USA participation rate can return to the 1999 level. But Sanders might in fact be not too optimistic but too pessimistic. Why should the participation rate not be higher than in 1999? The US of A was about the only country which, after 2008, experienced a large drop in the participation rate. In many other countries this rate is increasing."

The pious attacks on Bernie Sanders' 'fuzzy economics': "I don’t feel it necessary to defend Friedman, though it’s worth pointing out that his economic growth numbers would simply eliminate the GDP gap that was created by the Great Recession and was never filled in the subsequent years of slow growth—which should be the goal of public policy, however “extreme” it sounds. What I do want to challenge is the idea that there’s one serious, evidence-based way to perform economic forecasting."posted by dialetheia at 7:32 PM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]

Before the people of Vermont elected him to the Senate in 2006, Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi dubbed Sanders the “amendment king” of the House of Representatives noting:

“Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker – not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi – has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions.”

If that's in response to me, an appeal to the authority of the NYT is a fallacy whether it's Miller, Krugman, whomever, consequently, there is no "seal of approval". The NYT has fucked up pretty royally in the past and hasn't met my expectations for a "paper of record".posted by mikelieman at 11:54 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

There is the small matter of Krugman having a Nobel Prize for Economics which would seem to confer some level of authority on these matters? His background in economics is independent of his work for the NYT.posted by Justinian at 12:57 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

btw, I'm aware that free college exists in the world. I'm not a complete rube, nor do I think that college students should have to pay, especially these horrible tuitions. That is not my point. My point is that I believe red-state governors have to get on board with it financially; at least, that's how I've seen it spelled out here and I believe other places. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And I see that as a fantasy. I suppose if all the Rick Snyders in the country vanished in a moment, I would see it a lot differently.posted by angrycat at 2:51 AM on February 20, 2016

There is the small matter of Krugman having a Nobel Prize...

Another organization whose seal of approval is not unalloyed. I mean, Henry Kissinger?posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:15 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

And Judith Miller has a Pulitzer.posted by Drinky Die at 3:59 AM on February 20, 2016

People don't have to go to college in the same state they live in. Republican governors might want to prevent their adult citizens from getting an education but there's a limited amount they can do to directly obstruct it.posted by XMLicious at 4:09 AM on February 20, 2016

The Nobel Prizes in Economics and Peace are not only awarded by different organizations, they're awarded by different organizations in different countries. Kissinger's prize confers neither gleam not smear on Krugman's.posted by Etrigan at 4:25 AM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

I didn't even think about it, but MSNBC is talking about how today's Saturday caucus precludes Orthodox Jews from voting. ಠ ಠ

Any commandment may be broken in order to save a life. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a rabbi to say that voting in a primary may well qualify.posted by Faint of Butt at 6:52 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

an appeal to the authority of the NYT is a fallacy

Do we need to do newspaper literacy 101 again? (a) Unlike Miller, Paul Krugman is an opinion columnist. His words don't reflect the "authority' of the NYT and are free to openly counter its editorial stances, should he wish to do so. By printing his words, the Times is not necessarily endorsing them or vetting them for truth and accuracy. (b) "paper of record" does not mean what many people think it means. It does not mean "perfectly accurate and unassailable," it means authoritative and accountable, and in its truest and narrowest sense just means "we are the public record for the publication of your legal notices."posted by Miko at 6:52 AM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

I know it's not usually done until July or August, but I wish they'd announce their VP picks.posted by Room 641-A at 7:15 AM on February 20, 2016

I don't follow Krugman as closely as I used to, but he's received a lot of criticism for I guess a kind of "engineer's disease" in his discussions of politics - mostly from the right, but not exclusively. I first found this confusing, because he's a leader in his field and politics and economics are so closely intertwined.

I do remember that he was unrelentingly dismissive of Obama in 2008. You can read virtually any column by him from this time that year to see this. Krugman thought poorly of both Obama and his supporters, and people would try to figure out why. His criticisms then were somewhat different in character than his criticisms of Sanders today - he thought Obama was too conciliatory to the right, but also that his supporters were vicious and too trusting. Maybe he sees his role as being partly to temper expectations, or maybe he's just a big Clinton fan.posted by callistus at 7:18 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have a feeling that by tomorrow Jeb! will no longer be running for President. Good times.posted by Drinky Die at 7:25 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Any commandment may be broken in order to save a life. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a rabbi to say that voting in a primary may well qualify.

I don't even think that much effort is needed if you filed an absentee ballot earlier.posted by mikelieman at 7:43 AM on February 20, 2016

Nevada also has 11,383 active duty folks who are presumably barred from causing because of their service.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:54 AM on February 20, 2016

When I lived in Maine for a few years I had to caucus - Obama 2008 actually. It is one terrible system. I mean, the event itself is fun and crazy, and badly organized like just about Democratic Party events, but the participation and outcome are pretty terrible. It's a rotten model for party activity.posted by Miko at 8:12 AM on February 20, 2016

There is the small matter of Krugman having a Nobel Prize for Economics which would seem to confer some level of authority on these matters? His background in economics is independent of his work for the NYT.

It definitely does. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask to see his reasons for thinking Friedman's analysis fails or be disappointed when he doesn't really engage with the modeling assumptions. I like Krugman a lot, and I'm willing to believe that Friedman's analysis is beyond the pale. I just haven't seen anyone supply any reasons for thinking that it is so. Given that Krugman thinks it is crazy, I would really like to know why. The fact that he isn't actually telling us is disappointing. (Especially so given that he has no trouble supplying details when attacking Republican economic ideas.) Note that for me, it's Krugman's lack of detailed criticism that is disappointing, not his opinion about Friedman's analysis. Maybe Friedman's analysis is crazy. In which case, I would like to understand why it's crazy. But the way I will come to understand is for people who see serious problems with the analysis to clearly point them out and explain why they make the analysis fail.posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:54 AM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

I share Jonathan Livengood's frustrations with the critiques of Sanders's proposals -- they're long on "the numbers won't work" and short on "the numbers won't work for these specific reasons". Models are sensitive to the assumptions made, but that also means that the effects of different assumptions can be quantified and discussed.posted by wintermind at 9:37 AM on February 20, 2016

That headline reminds me - it frustrates me to no end to see people taking these criticisms of Friedman's analysis and assuming that they necessarily reflect poorly on Sanders' policies. The thing people are arguing about is how much economic growth would follow from his plans - not whether they are workable at all. To the extent that this analysis is incorrect, it reflects on Friedman and arguably the campaign for tweeting the link to that analysis - but not at all on Sanders' plans themselves, which say absolutely nothing about growth rates, don't rely on those growth estimates, and were put together before Friedman's analysis was done. He's not even affiliated with the campaign at all as far as I know, and in fact is a Clinton supporter.

Beyond this whole kerfuffle, I appreciated this piece at interfluidity that was linked above and which really nails why this argument is beside the point of whether someone should support Sanders' policies, especially given the widespread disagreement between serious economists about even the most basic model parameters.

A democratic polity does not elect a technocrat-in-chief, but politicians whose role is to define priorities that must later be translated into well-crafted policy details. Paul Ryan’s various budgets haven’t been wrong because they require giant magic asterices to make the numbers add up. They have been wrong because the interests and values Paul Ryan represents are wrong. ...

In a democratic polity, wonks are the help. The role of the democratic process is to adjudicate interests and values. Wonks get a vote just like everyone else, but expertise on technocratic matters ought not translate to any deference on interests and values. If your theory of democracy is that informed citizens ought to cast votes based on the best social science, you have no theory of democracy at all.

From the philosopher and cow clicker game designer Ian Bogost on the Twitter:

"What if the 2016 Presidential election is actually the third season of True Detective?"posted by Wordshore at 10:22 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

As someone who has been advocating a Sanders run independent of whether one prefers him, simply because it pushes Hillary leftward, I must say, I somewhat have to reevaluate that assumption. On the one hand, she has definitely moved left on TPP, social security, and a few other things. But on the other hand, she has also moved distinctly right on many things, some of them quite large: explicitly opposing single payer, explicitly embracing Kissingerian foreign policy, and attacking as impossible various progressive goals such as free college and a return to pre-rececession levels of employment. Her entire campaign of "realism" has essentially been an effort to push the party rightward, towards technocratic incrementalism against an assumed background of indefinite gridlock and Republican power. And that campaign has, I think, had real effects on the types of arguments I see swing Democratic voters (eg, folks in their 30s and 40s) now making. I don't know whether their rejection of Sanders's policies as pie-in-the-sky idealism will necessarily continue to influence their views after the primaries are over, but the effect has been striking to me, at least anecdotally. On the whole, I think Sanders has moved the conversation leftward, at least within the Democratic party, but the counter-currents are real and strong.

One problem, I guess, is that Clinton can't join Sanders on his more popular policies simply because he so publicly owns them, so in order to get any credit she has to stake out policies that are suffiiciently distinct as to be hers -- and when the only thing that is left is stuff distinctly to the right, then that's what we get. But apart from its short-term strategic effect (basically, allowing her to skate through the primary with a small margin of victory but be well-positioned for the general), it has big effects on rank-and-file party ideology. I certainly see more Democrats making energetically anti-progressive (or anti-idealist, anti-unicorn) arguments now than I have in a long time. But hopefully having these sorts of debates at all, and truly delving into the economics of single-payer or FDR-level stimulus, has some beneficial effects for all of us.posted by chortly at 10:38 AM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

it frustrates me to no end to see people taking these criticisms of Friedman's analysis and assuming that they necessarily reflect poorly on Sanders' policies....To the extent that this analysis is incorrect, it reflects on Friedman and arguably the campaign for tweeting the link to that analysis - but not at all on Sanders' plans themselves

If Sanders' campaign promotes something, isn't it fair to critique it as reflective of Sanders' plans and claims? If Sanders and his campaign think Friend's analysis is unfair, isn't that on him and his campaign to point out how?

There were a lot of people touting Friedman's analysis as evidence of how great Sanders' plans are; if it's unfair to take criticism of his analysis as criticism of Sanders plan, isn't it also unfair to take it it as evidence of the strength of his plan?posted by cjelli at 10:39 AM on February 20, 2016

Don't get me wrong: I think Krugman's critique should have been way more detailed than it was. The CEA critique should have been way more detailed than it was. But either Friedman's analysis accurately reflects Sanders plan or it doesn't; and it's either a good analysis of Sander's plans outcomes or it isn't -- but those are two separate issues.posted by cjelli at 10:42 AM on February 20, 2016

Yes, it is unfair because it's a logical fallacy. Just because his analysis is incorrect doesn't mean that the plans themselves are bad. Anyone can run a bad analysis on good plans and come up with an incorrect result (and it still has yet to be proven that those plans are incorrect - many economists disagree and have been exhaustively linked in this thread, too). The campaign hasn't leaned heavily on those analyses in making the claim for their policies, because their policies are not predicated on growth predictions but on values and beliefs about human rights.

The "will lead to growth" claim is just icing on the cake anyway - the point of his plan is to stabilize the declining working- and middle class and provide health care and education as human rights. Significant growth would just be a bonus. In fact, Sanders has been very clear in his monetary policy that growth for its own sake is a poor goal when 99% of that growth ends up going to the top 1% anyway. It's the distribution of those gains and the standard of living for all American people that are truly important.posted by dialetheia at 10:46 AM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

I certainly see more Democrats making energetically anti-progressive (or anti-idealist, anti-unicorn) arguments now than I have in a long time. But hopefully having these sorts of debates at all, and truly delving into the economics of single-payer or FDR-level stimulus, has some beneficial effects for all of us.

I think they definitely do. For my adult life thus far, the Democratic Party has been defined and bounded by what-is-practical-ism, because of the leadership and influence of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and I think it's clearly been to the detriment of all but the richest Americans. Sanders is articulating political goals that spring from a strong and basic humanism, and I believe that's how we should identify and define our political goals: not by what is possible or probable, but by what is ideal, by what should be.

I believe that health care and education are basic human rights, certainly in a nation as affluent as the United States. I realize that those are very difficult goals to achieve, and may be impractical at the moment. But those are the kinds of problems that can only be tackled and solved by collective action, and politics and government are how we marshal our collective effort. To cede ground from the best answers and solutions to the practical and the compromise before we even start, is to diminish what is actually possible.

The Clintons' calculating political style ('well, I'd really love ideal solution x, but I won't win elections if I actually say that') has corrupted our thinking about politics and political strategy so thoroughly that someone like Sanders, who actually says what he believes and sets targets where they ought to be, is just confounding (and scary) to many. But now that the internet has happened, and people are not vassals to corporate media narrative-shaping and framing, his message can propagate, mostly unfiltered. And guess what we're finding out? Lots of people agree with him, and do want some idealistic, pie-in-the-sky goals, because we realize that those are targets worth aiming for, even if they take us a while to hit.

I mean, sure, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. But the second best time is today.posted by LooseFilter at 11:01 AM on February 20, 2016 [31 favorites]

Lots of people agree with him, and do want some idealistic, pie-in-the-sky goals, because we realize that those are targets worth aiming for, even if they take us a while to hit.

Dialetheia, you have posted some excellent links through several threads now. That article from "The Nation" does a good job of detailing much of what aligns with my support for Sanders.

The article also does a good job of explaining why criticism of Clinton is about more than just her vote on Iraq - While I certainly would have preferred her to be against it in the first place, I think its a really good thing that Clinton admit that was a mistake. I'd rather see that than steadfast adherence to it being the right thing. It's really her present stance that I find more concerning.... Her take on foreign policy only seems reasonable to me when compared to any of the Republican candidates who are still in the race. While she may regret the vote on Iraq, it wouldn't seem that her regret has really changed her overall approach. I've said before that I value someone who is willing to admit when they have made a mistake, and to learn from the process. The willingness to admit it was a mistake is only part of the process - I don't believe that it has changed her approach, though.posted by MysticMCJ at 11:46 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

It's really strange to see people inside the caucuses with signs for their candidates. That would be extremely no bueno here in New York City.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:56 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yes, it is unfair because it's a logical fallacy. Just because his analysis is incorrect doesn't mean that the plans themselves are bad...[and] The campaign hasn't leaned heavily on those analyses in making the claim for their policies.

I think we might be disagreeing about the extent to which the campaign has embraced Friedman.
CNN: Sanders' policy director called [Friedman's analysis] "outstanding work"...[and] also defended the estimates, noting the candidate is thinking big. "We haven't had such an ambitious agenda to rebuild the middle class since Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson," he said.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Warren Gunnels, policy director for the Sanders campaign, hailed the [Friedman] report’s finding that the proposals are feasible and expressed hope that more people will look into them. “It’s gotten a little bit of attention, but not nearly as much as we would like,” Mr. Gunnels said..."It shows that over a 10-year period, we would create 26 million new jobs, the poverty rate would plummet, that incomes would go up dramatically, and we would have strong economic growth. ... It’s a very bold plan, and we want to get this out there.”

Friedman's analysis was absolutely embraced by the Sanders campaign. They had every opportunity to disavow it, or to caution people that it wasn't reflective of Sanders' plans, but instead they were pushing it as a notable news story, as a Clinton-leaning economist backing Sanders' plan, and as an analysis that was both accurate and reflective of the details in Sanders' plan.

To restate my earlier question, if we cannot take criticism of analysis of Sanders' plan backed and promoted by the Sanders' campaign as criticism of the plan itself, what can we as fair criticism of Sanders' plan?posted by cjelli at 11:59 AM on February 20, 2016

Yes, it is unfair because it's a logical fallacy. Just because his analysis is incorrect doesn't mean that the plans themselves are bad

Or more succinctly than my above reply: Wouldn't it follow, from that, that if his analysis is correct it doesn't necessarily mean the plans are good?posted by cjelli at 12:02 PM on February 20, 2016

Uh. I've read Hillary is the favourite candidate from the pro-austerity douchebags that ruined countless lives around here for the sake of the markets.

While I don't think it says anything new about Hillary in the context of European politics, I'm guessing the Republican Party right now has gone way far in the right-wing spectrum I'm not even sure if our Constitucional Court wouldn't be challenged to outlaw it.posted by lmfsilva at 12:04 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Man I'm so not loving the argument that realism/pragmatism is prima facie a bad thing.posted by angrycat at 12:21 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

. For my adult life thus far, the Democratic Party has been defined and bounded by what-is-practical-ism, because of the leadership and influence of both Bill and Hillary Clinton,

IT IS RIGHT HERE IN THE FUCKING THREAD OH GOD WHY AM I EVEN BOTHERINGposted by angrycat at 12:25 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

The argument is more that sometimes setting ambitious goals is the more pragmatic thing to do. If you wanted to win the space race, setting the goal high was the right thing to do. If you want everyone to be covered, without monthly payments still draining pockets and bankruptcy the possible result of a medical bill, then you have to set the goal there.posted by Drinky Die at 12:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

My life experiences will not submit to arguments that contradict or elide their reality.posted by LooseFilter at 12:29 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

IT IS RIGHT HERE IN THE FUCKING THREAD OH GOD WHY AM I EVEN BOTHERING

Oh yeah I remember that line from where it's above To cede ground from the best answers and solutions to the practical and the compromise before we even start, is to diminish what is actually possible.posted by phearlez at 12:29 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

CBS entrance poll predicts that Clinton and Sanders are roughly tied among white Nevada Caucus attendees, with Clinton having a lead among minority voters.posted by markkraft at 12:32 PM on February 20, 2016

People are going to define pragmatism and idealism differently. I read the argument not to "compromise before we even start" as showing how idealism can operate at the same time as pragmatism, and even how idealism can serve pragmatic ends.posted by audi alteram partem at 12:32 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

First, it's not clear that Sanders has to be on the hook for any specific outcome with respect to economic growth in order for his plans to be "good." For example, one might think that having a more equal distribution of wealth is good and that the plans would count as good even if they produce no economic growth, provided they result in more equality. In this respect, challenging Friedman's specific way of modeling or instantiating Sanders' plans is not necessarily to challenge Sanders' plans.

Second, whether you think criticisms of Friedman's analysis map directly onto Sanders depends a bit on what question(s) you take Friedman to be addressing. As Mason's piece, "Can Sanders Do It?" points out, there are three nested questions that have to be addressed:

1. Is it reasonable to think that better macroeconomic policy could deliver substantially higher output and employment?
2. Are the kinds of things proposed by Sanders capable in principle of getting us there?
3. Are the specific numbers in Sanders’ proposals the right ones for such a really-full employment plan?

If we are fighting about the first question, then the entire modeling framework is wrong. So, it's not so clear whether that is a criticism of Sanders' plan. Perhaps Sanders should be required to know enough economics to point out these kinds of flaws. But ... we don't seem to hold any other politicians to that standard. And in any event, it is surprising for left-leaning economists -- and especially Krugman -- to deny that the answer to the first question is yes.

If we are fighting about the second question, then showing Friedman's analysis fails is not enough to impugn Sanders' plans. In order to impugn Sanders, one would have to show that the whole range of models consistent with Sanders' ideas fail to deliver the kinds of gains he says we can get. The criticism then does look fallacious: like claiming that no parameterization of a model will work because this specific one doesn't. I take it the discourse is really at this level. And so the criticisms, if successful, would only go to show that Sanders' plans have not been shown to work. The criticisms, even if successful, would NOT show that Sanders' plans CANNOT work.

If we are fighting about the third question, then we need to know two things: what Sanders' specific numerical proposals are and whether the model is the right model. I don't think that Sanders is engaging in this careful of an economic discussion. He has -- for a politician -- pretty detailed plans. But I don't think they are numerically precise in a way that would let us map them to a unique economic model. And, of course, the model itself might be bad. I mean, we could plug in correct numbers into a garbage economic model and get garbage back out. That wouldn't mean that the plan from which the numbers come is a bad one. Here is where it is most reasonable, I think, to ask that the Sanders campaign distance itself from the analysis unless it wants to be on the hook for the specific claims coming out of the model. But again, I don't think this is the level of the discourse. By pointing to Friedman's analysis, I think the Sanders campaign is saying something more like, "See, the kinds of things we are suggesting could work."posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

NBC does not agree with CBS. Among white voters, Clinton trails by 8%. Among Hispanic voters, Sanders leading by 11%.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:36 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

The general manager of Caesars Palace stood up right before the caucus process started and told the room full of union shift workers that even if the caucus isn’t done by 1 p.m., they should still stay until they’re over.

The room is pretty full now — still appears to be a lot of Clinton supporters — so much so that the dividing wall of the ballroom was opened up. There are 278 eligible caucus attendees at this location, according to an announcement that was just made by the precinct captain.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:44 PM on February 20, 2016

Thank you for that response. I think part of my personal frustration here is that people on both sides seem to be advancing several different arguments at the same time, and then responding to one set of claims with refutations that don't actually apply to those claims -- that there's an ongoing conflation of different and discrete points.

Which leads me to: And in any event, it is surprising for left-leaning economists -- and especially Krugman -- to deny that the answer to the first question is yes.

From reading Krugman's column, he's quite explicitly not saying that. If I'm missing a point where he does, I'd love a cite. His February 17th post is very specifically about Friednman's analysis of Sander's plans, and notes, 'The point is not that all of this is impossible, but it’s very unlikely' -- that the specific targets Friedman is addressing are unlikely. It's clearly not a denial of your first point; far from it -- it's addressing your third point, particularly the specifics of Friedman's analysis as it relates to that.

Here is where it is most reasonable, I think, to ask that the Sanders campaign distance itself from the analysis unless it wants to be on the hook for the specific claims coming out of the model. But again, I don't think this is the level of the discourse. By pointing to Friedman's analysis, I think the Sanders campaign is saying something more like, "See, the kinds of things we are suggesting could work.

That was the essence of my earlier questions, and I'm sorry if that was unclear. I do read Krugman differently than you seem to, and I also read the campaign's framing of Friedman differently, and more as endorsement of his specific claims. Insofar as that's true, I think it's perfectly fair to put the campaign on the hook for Friedman's claims. If you read the campaign as merely endorsing the broader framework, then it would be wrong to do that, and I think that's also entirely fair.

Personally, I only disagree on the third point, and then only insofar as there's insufficient analysis yet -- it's not that it's wrong, it's that it's too soon to tell. I think Sander's overall economic approach is a good one, and a reasonable one.posted by cjelli at 12:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

From reading Krugman's column, he's quite explicitly not saying that. If I'm missing a point where he does, I'd love a cite. His February 17th post is very specifically about Friednman's analysis of Sander's plans, and notes, 'The point is not that all of this is impossible, but it’s very unlikely' -- that the specific targets Friedman is addressing are unlikely. It's clearly not a denial of your first point; far from it -- it's addressing your third point, particularly the specifics of Friedman's analysis as it relates to that.

Good. I'll take a look back. But you're probably right here. As I said, Krugman seemed to me to be attacking something that he has long supported -- the ability of macroeconomic policy to produce substantially higher unemployment and substantially greater economic output -- but given it's something he has long supported, I probably should have spent longer making sure that he was actually saying the crazy thing that I thought he was saying! I suspect that my error here comes from thinking that the discourse should really be about Question #2 at this stage.

I also read the campaign's framing of Friedman differently, and more as endorsement of his specific claims. Insofar as that's true, I think it's perfectly fair to put the campaign on the hook for Friedman's claims. If you read the campaign as merely endorsing the broader framework, then it would be wrong to do that, and I think that's also entirely fair.

I agree. If the campaign is saying, "We agree with Friedman's modeling assumptions," then they're on the hook for it. I read the campaign as giving yes answers to Questions 1 and 2, and appealing to Friedman's analysis as evidence that a yes answer to Question 2 is plausible. I don't think they're going any further than that, and if they are going further than that, then I think they're making a mistake.posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:08 PM on February 20, 2016

Wow, that red-shirt ploy looks a whole lot like cheating, and it's not the first time they've done it:

At a large caucus at the New York casino Clinton staffers were wearing red t-shirts, despite the fact that Clinton has branded blue the entire campaign. Red is if course associated with National Nurses United, has been our color for years and well known in nurses campaigning for Sanders in red scrubs, red shirts, and even our red Bernie Buses that have been prominent in early voting states.

When our nurses walked into the room with cameras and a couple press the Clinton staffers ran over to the corner and quickly changed to blue shirts.

Chris Matthews is an idiot. If he were a Sanders supporter, he'd still be an idiot.posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:09 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Wow Brokaw, that was already a shitty segment and you managed to take it right into the basement to end it quite nicely.

They were discussing college costs and doing the routine where the problem is that students pick useless humanities majors. Said he talked to someone who spoke with a woman who complained about being $100,000 in debt and asked her major was. She said renaissance literature. He said, "I wanted to tell her go be a pole dancer."posted by Drinky Die at 1:42 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

NBC officially projects "slight lead" for Clinton, but still too close to call.posted by Drinky Die at 1:49 PM on February 20, 2016

I don't want to impose, and you don't owe any of us anything here, but if you are willing to say more, I would like to know which rhetorical moves are giving you pause (and why) and whether you are referring to the rhetoric of Sanders supporters here on Metafilter or the rhetoric of Sanders supporters out in the wider world.

Things that have bugged me, as far as Sanders supporters go:
- I posted a cheesy "I love both our candidates!" thing on a Politico article and was responded to with the following comment: "one great candidate and a dried up lying old hag who can't even satisfy her man" (I see comments like this once in a while)
- That Guy who posts the same long spammy Bernie thing in every Facebook news post, whether or not the story has anything to do with the campaign (pretty much limited to That Guy)
- the constant push back any time someone says anything less than positive about Bernie supporters (has happened in every single Bernie thread here)

These are small potatoes, mostly avoidable, and (other than maybe unconsciously) don't affect my choice of candidate. But still annoying, especially the third. It's really not cool to make a statement about something you experienced and get back "no that doesn't happen" "are you sure about that" "yes but Hillary also blah blah" "well I haven't seen that so you're wrong" "hmmm seems unlikely." I'm not saying all or even most Bernie supporters are Bernie Broing it up - but as Bernie himself realizes there are people out there doing this. The really bad comments bug me because they just feel *so* angry and personal (how dare this HAG etc).

I also agree with the assessment that problematic Sanders-related statements seem to be coming from (a tiny minority of) regular folk supporters while problematic Clinton-related statements seem to be coming from her campaign's high profile supporters - maybe because of an enthusiasm gap? My friends and family who are Clinton supporters are markedly more chill and less evangelical about it than my friends and family who are Sanders supporters. People tend to be pushier and more emotional about things they are passionate about.posted by sallybrown at 1:50 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Interesting looking at the county map. Sanders appears to be losing by about 8 points in most of the cities, such as Vegas, Tahoe, and Reno, while a lot of the internal rural parts of the state are pretty evenly divided, but he's doing *very* well in the small, rural counties near Utah and Eastern Oregon, which have a large Mormon population.

It's a shame they didn't poll for that, as it might make Utah an interesting state to watch.posted by markkraft at 1:52 PM on February 20, 2016

> "But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop."

I feel so bad for Jeb!. He even ditched his glasses like one of those makeover movies and it didn't do a thing. It's like if in She's All That Rachel Leigh Cook came down the stairs all glammed up and Freddie Prinze Jr. had been like "meh."posted by sallybrown at 1:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

If Sanders can't win in a caucus in Nevada I think his chances of winning the nomination are virtually nil.posted by Justinian at 2:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

"I feel so bad for Jeb!"

Strange person to feel bad for, huh?!

I was surprised to feel sorry for him after seeing this... but then I remembered that he was one of the original members and signators for Project for a New American Century, and that all his friends there like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. all wound up in Bush's administration, almost as if Jeb had recommended them himself...

Yeah this is pretty much the last hurrah for imagining a victory. He should start making plans for when he is going to withdraw. The party that unifies behind their candidate first is going to have a huge advantage in this race.

I wish he was younger, because I think he learned a lot and could do much better selling himself in a second run down the line.posted by Drinky Die at 2:11 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Tbh, if he does withdraw, I'll be looking for a Republican candidate for the first time in my life. Which is scary.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:12 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

angrycat,

I don't know what LooseFilter had in mine, but your characterization struck me as a straw man, also. Specifically ...

This: Man I'm so not loving the argument that realism/pragmatism is prima facie a bad thing.

Is neither equivalent to nor an obvious consequence of this: For my adult life thus far, the Democratic Party has been defined and bounded by what-is-practical-ism, because of the leadership and influence of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, ...

Two things. First, there is a difference between realism or pragmatism as such and the "defined and bounded by what-is-practical-ism" in the quoted bit. I think that what is really pragmatic in the general sense is NOT to be defined and bounded by "what-is-practical-ism" insofar as I understand that to mean aiming for and beginning negotiations with what one takes to be practically achievable. I think this because I don't think that "what-is-practical-ism" works as a political philosophy.

Second, there is a difference between what is prima facie the case and what is ultima facie the case. I take the bit you quoted to be saying that being too focused on what is practical has turned out to be a bad idea. The part that you left off then defends that judgment by offering an explanation. So, "realism" and "pragmatism" in the political context -- of the sort that the Clintons support -- might very well appear to be good things at first blush (prima facie) while actually not being good things after due consideration (ultima facie).

So, I take it what commenters here are saying is, "Focusing on what is practically achievable -- especially in framing your positions and beginning negotiations -- hasn't worked, so we should try something else." Whereas, I take your gloss to be something like, "You can see at a glance that being realistic about what we can achieve is a bad thing."posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Uh. I don't agree he should withdraw. He will still get a lot of delegates and a bunch of states. I just don't think he can get 51% of delegates if he can't win a caucus in Nevada.

But he should get enough delegates that he has influence on the platform.posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on February 20, 2016

It's true that if Sanders loses NV he doesn't have much of a path to the nomination, but it's not like he's going to withdraw tomorrow. He'll be going through Super Tuesday at least, no matter how poorly those races go. I think he's clearly earned that, and the Dems in that scenario would still be unifying behind a candidate waaay before the Reps will.posted by saturday_morning at 2:14 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I haven't been expecting Sanders to win the Nevada caucus; that he has made it this close shows that his candidacy continues to gain support. No way he should drop out.posted by LooseFilter at 2:22 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

"Everyone is calling it for Hillary, but he's keeping it close."

Nate Silver extrapolated a few minutes ago, based on what's left, and is predicting about a 5-6 point win for Clinton.posted by markkraft at 2:23 PM on February 20, 2016

wow, Johnathan Livegood thank you because i was seriously not following why i was generating ire. the distinction makes sense.posted by angrycat at 2:24 PM on February 20, 2016

I agree DD, though, this was anticlimactic. I was hoping for more excitement. Perhaps the Republican side will provide the necessary LULZ.posted by Justinian at 2:25 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Tbh, if he does withdraw, I'll be looking for a Republican candidate for the first time in my life. Which is scary.

What? This I do not understand at all. You would vote for Trump or Cruz if you can't vote for Sanders? Can you explain a little more?

I really don't get American politics, and this election is very strange and depressing, seen from outside. I feel a lot like I did in 2004: we are all going to hell in a handbasket and nothing makes sense. And we did, back then. I fear it's going to be even worse this time. The Republican candidates are all scary.

Hillary Clinton is all about power to Hillary and Bill

And Bernie Sanders is inspiring and interesting, but also reminds me of Carter. So much can go wrong.posted by mumimor at 2:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

"To be honest, it’s not much of a game-changer either way. Based on demographics and other factors, we’d have expected Clinton to win Nevada by about 3 percentage points in a race that was tied nationally. She seems poised to do just slightly better than that, which implies that the national vote still favors her (although perhaps only narrowly indeed).

Still, maintaining the status quo is basically good news for Clinton. She seems to have a slight advantage nationally over Sanders, and if that drifts into being more of a tie, she’d probably have an advantage over Sanders because of superdelegates. ...

Occam’s razor: Clinton held serve and remains the favorite in the Democratic race, but Sanders is likely to keep her on her toes for some time to come."posted by dialetheia at 2:27 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

The NYT graphic about what counties went Sanders v went Clinton is really interesting, in terms of the rural vs. urban (Las Vegas) divide. I wonder what that means in terms of the general race.posted by angrycat at 2:28 PM on February 20, 2016

This is great news for Bernie Sanders!

No, it's great news for all of us, if you believe in the things that Sanders is and has been fighting his whole life to change. I have this quaint and apparently antiquated view that elections are about all of us, and what kind of lives we have and want to have, because they are the moments when the public discourse is most focused on that. I also think that elections and campaigns can have positive effects that reach far beyond any single contest for any particular office.

I was responding specifically to the idea that the Nevada result shows that Sanders continues to gain support. Not to his candidacy in general, which on the whole has been a good thing.posted by Justinian at 2:31 PM on February 20, 2016

[Markkraft, you need to not come in to every vaguely political thread and immediately escalate the discussion in favor of whoever. Thanks.]posted by restless_nomad at 2:33 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

The conventional wisdom on TV seems to be that caucus states favor the "insurgent" candidate, but that isn't what I remember from 2008. Caucus states favored Obama because he had a vastly superior ground game and the party wasn't really taking sides. This year, I feel like caucus states probably favor the DNC's candidate, all other things being equal, just because they inherently have the superior ground game. Sanders has a ton of grassroots energy, but he doesn't necessarily have the organization that Obama had in 2008 (which may prove to be a big problem for him). Is there a separate argument for the insurgent candidate winning caucuses more often that I'm missing, or is it mostly based on those 2008 results?posted by dialetheia at 2:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Moderately predictable results despite NV being hard to poll.

Clinton victory was expected and she seems to be exceeding expectations. This result should stop a lot of the bernie momentum. Combined with a solid win in SC and Clinton should still easily win the nomination unless Bernie can make up a lot of ground rapidly.

Clinton needs to figure out how to recapture the disaffected liberals that are supporting Bernie but what seems to be interesting is that pivoting to the left probably won't harm Clinton.posted by vuron at 2:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I was responding specifically to the idea that the Nevada result shows that Sanders continues to gain support.

But it does: in December, Clinton was polling around 25-30% ahead of Sanders, and she had to cancel appearances in Florida to shore up support in Nevada recently. Sanders closed a big gap in Nevada, winning a lot of support that was not there a few weeks ago. (And my sense is that those from whom he is winning support, as demonstrated by the current caucus results coming in, speak to him as the true crossover appeal candidate in the race, for either party.)posted by LooseFilter at 2:39 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

The fact that Sanders has consistently been getting such high numbers says a lot about a general desire among the voting public for something truly different. I'm not expecting Sanders to win the nomination, but that's never been the whole story anyway: setting aside the specifics of platforms, Sanders clearly represents something very different from normal politics to a lot of people, and his relative success continues to undermine the dominant narrative that the game can only be played one way.

As long as he's still running, he's holding Clinton's feet to the fire, and that's a good thing for everyone. My only concern is that her campaign will decide to "get real," or something, and stop trying to appeal to the left when they no longer feel a need to do so. But hopefully the lasting legacy of this campaign, if nothing else, will be that the left isn't as insignificant as may have previously been assumed.posted by teponaztli at 2:40 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

From @FiveThirtyEight in 2008, Obama won 18-29 year-olds in Nevada 59% to 33%. This year they went 84% Sanders to 11% Clinton #Nevadacaucusposted by Room 641-A at 2:42 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

I think Bernie needs to match Obama in order to be a credible challenger to Clinton in the nomination process. Obama was able to focus on a lot of caucuses in his path to victory and this time Clinton seems to be negating that strategy. also keep in mind that it is next to impossible for Bernie to replicate the African American support that propeled Obama to victory in several races in 2008.

Still I am very glad that Bernie is making a good go of it even though the deck is stacked against him.posted by vuron at 2:45 PM on February 20, 2016

Clinton needs to figure out how to recapture the disaffected liberals that are supporting Bernie but what seems to be interesting is that pivoting to the left probably won't harm Clinton.

I'm getting pretty nervous about Trump pivoting left (would we even call it that in his case? god knows) - in the past week he's blamed the Bush administration for failing to act on intelligence before 9/11 and for the war in Iraq enabling the rise of ISIS, he's said he likes the health insurance mandate and might expand Medicare (the NYT frames this as an error that he's walking back, but I think he's doing this deliberately to build support), defended Planned Parenthood, and probably more that I can't even keep track of.

Might people who are feeling the "outsider" vibe and have the privilege to ignore Trump's hate speech against Muslims and communities of color flip to Trump in the general? Is his buffoonery obvious enough to prevent that?posted by sallybrown at 2:55 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

Might people who are feeling the "outsider" vibe and have the privilege to ignore Trump's hate speech against Muslims and communities of color flip to Trump in the general? Is his buffoonery obvious enough to prevent that?

I think the number who flip from Sanders to Trump would be pretty negligible. More worrisome would be the number who don't vote at all or vote 3rd party, which they don't see as helping Trump even if it would have the same practical effect.posted by Justinian at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2016

Sanders' support doesn't only come from being the outsider. I can't imagine there's a huge overlap between current Sanders supporters and potential Trumpers, even if there are folks who have said they never want to vote for Clinton.posted by teponaztli at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2016

I'm with you, sallybrown. I'm just not confident about Clinton's ability to defeat Trump in the general.posted by Faint of Butt at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2016

Bernie still polls better against all the Rs, which worries me if Trump goes yuge for Trump.posted by Room 641-A at 3:00 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

Is his buffoonery obvious enough to prevent that?

We're waaaaay past the point where his obvious buffoonery should have prevented any success in this primary. For my part, I have no sense of where his candidacy can go.

I'm just not confident about Clinton's ability to defeat Trump in the general.

MSNBC saying that Harry Reid made some calls to the culinary union. They'd said earlier that the hotels then gave them three hours paid to go caucus, so I guess that makes sense now.posted by Room 641-A at 3:04 PM on February 20, 2016

No, it's great news for Clinton, in that the Nevada Caucus has traditionally had a really low turnout. In 2008, Clinton had about 5500 votes, compared to about 4900 for Obama.

That makes the Nevada Caucus both rather undemocratic in nature -- they should've stuck with the primary -- and also a comparatively easy state for activists to win, since they tend to have a more aggressive turnout. Ron Paul did quite well in the GOP Nevada caucus in '08, for example.

Nevada was very much a matter of Clinton dodging a bullet. It was close, but still dodged, so the narrative going on is one that will both motivate her supporters to get involved *AND* basically reinforce the standard narrative of her having a significant edge and an expanding lead, especially among minority voters, who seem to have carried the day for her around Vegas and in other big cities, where her union support held firm.

If Clinton had lost Nevada, she could've really hurt the outcome going into Super Tuesday. Instead, she is poised to go into Super Tuesday with a BIG win in South Carolina, and with three wins and nearly a 500 delegate lead, once SC is added in to the mix. She will also have a clear majority in the popular vote... and Super Tuesday looks likely to expand on all those narratives.

What's more important, perhaps, is that I see strong signs of Hillary Clinton's supporters waking up and being activists themselves. Just like in ;08, Hillary's supporters kind of assumed that her camp had everything handled, only to get badly surprised by Obama, especially in caucus states. In this case, though, Sanders' early strength has been largely contained.

Robby Mook was the state campaign manager for Clinton in Nevada in '08, and won that state for her by a little less than the margin he won Nevada today. His general campaign strategy for this election is to keep the caucus states competitive, while outperforming in non-caucus states with more demographically mixed primaries. Seems to me, that strategy is working quite well thus far. This is a much better Clinton campaign than in 2008, and its really just starting to come up to speed.posted by markkraft at 3:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

that ad with her and the little Latina girl worried about her parents getting deported was pretty fucking effective. i don't know, maybe clinton eats babies in her spare time, but that ad was really effective.posted by angrycat at 3:12 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Bernie was polling better mainly because the Super PAC money on the right hasn't targeted him yet. Plus general election polling numbers are wildly unpredictable this far out.

I do think that Trump could do well among blue collar rust belt voters who aren't really Sanders supporters but could turn out in large enough numbers to make Ohio red.

That is the real problem because I will be honest nativist crap that Trump is using isn't real a deal breaker with some Democrats.posted by vuron at 3:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

"Obama was able to focus on a lot of caucuses in his path to victory and this time Clinton seems to be negating that strategy. "

That's a very specific, deliberative strategy that Robby Mook has talked about.

The fact is, Clinton won most large states, won the popular vote... but lost the election due to big Obama wins in caucus states.

The amusing thing about this, is that this strategy forces Clinton to adopt something much more like the 50-state strategy that Dean supported. This is a good thing for Democrats, regardless of who you support.posted by markkraft at 3:16 PM on February 20, 2016

I wish he was younger, because I think he learned a lot and could do much better selling himself in a second run down the line.

Another fun what-if is if he'd started running in 2013, maybe actually run as a Democrat in 2012, spent another two years building a coalition.posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:20 PM on February 20, 2016

Re: those general election matchups, there is absolutely a valid argument that Sanders just hasn't been attacked yet even though his margin of victory vs. hers has been remarkably stable even as people have gotten to know him.

But putting Sanders' margins aside altogether, Clinton's margins vs. the GOP are still really troubling because she performs so poorly with white and male voters. The most recent Quinnipiac national poll had some really tough crosstabs on the white vote for her margins vs. the GOP candidates. Kasich would beat her in the white vote by 27 points right now! Among white voters, Trump beats her by 16%, Cruz by 19%, Rubio by 23%. We can absolutely afford to lose the white vote, but not by those margins, as those head-to-head matchups make clear - she would lose to anyone but Trump with those numbers. The white working-class is where you'd find that Trump/Sanders crossover, and it appears to be borne out in these crosstabs - Sanders cuts those white vote margins in half compared to Clinton (though again, all the usual disclaimers about him not being attacked yet, etc etc). According to that same poll, it looks like men would vote anyone-but-Clinton by an 8-16 point margin, and her margin among women isn't nearly large enough to offset that loss yet.

Anyway, obviously a lot will change between now and the election, yadda yadda yadda, but there are still some really troubling numbers in there for her (and I didn't even mention any of the "honest/trustworthy" or favorability metrics).posted by dialetheia at 3:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

markkraft, your analysis is a bit circumspect, but more importantly, the consistently aggressive and confrontational nature of your comments in these threads has eliminated any credibility your opinions may have had. You are clearly a very, very strong Clinton supporter, and very angry about and at Sanders supporters. I, for one, cannot take any analysis you present as either objective or serious.

But putting Sanders' margins aside altogether, Clinton's margins vs. the GOP are still really troubling because she performs so poorly with white and male voters.

This remains my largest concern about the election in general: I still think Clinton will win the nomination, but remain unconvinced that she will win in the general election. Should she win the nomination, I will be happy to be proven wrong about that (but seriously worry I am not).posted by LooseFilter at 3:36 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

The Democrats have so much strength and depth in their field, and that's going to make a huge difference vs. whoever the GOP throws against them.

I am looking forward to Obama, Bill Clinton, Carter, the Castro brothers, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and hopefully Bernie all stumping and raising money for Clinton and the Democrats, when the time comes.

Another fun what-if is if he'd started running in 2013, maybe actually run as a Democrat in 2012, spent another two years building a coalition.

You're suggesting that running against the sitting president would have been a better plan?posted by Room 641-A at 3:38 PM on February 20, 2016

I suspect that Clinton's hardest match up is Rubiobot because of Hispanic and male voters but also because he's running a Teflon campaign which is hard to maintain in the General but basically it's Romney 2012 with Hispanic Republican.posted by vuron at 3:42 PM on February 20, 2016

Markkraft is obviously biased as are most of the people in this thread but his analysis does match a lot of the conventional wisdom concerning the logistics of a Presidential run. There are still issues with Clinton campaign but overall they have to be pretty happy.posted by vuron at 3:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

The amusing thing about this, is that this strategy forces Clinton to adopt something much more like the 50-state strategy that Dean supported. This is a good thing for Democrats, regardless of who you support.

I suppose that depends on how ones views matters. Speaking only for myself, as an long-time old fashioned labor Democrat, this is not merely about the technical details of running successful campaigns--this is a fight for the soul of the party. I have cast my ballot for Democrats time and time again--beginning with Jimmy Carter--with full knowledge that my party was slowly but surely becoming less representative of my views. To twist that old saw: "The Democratic party has abandoned me, but I have not abandoned the party."

Asking me, once again, to forego my views merely to have some kind of bureaucratic success against the really bad guys, is quite simply, very tiresome.

That's why I'm going to continue to support Sanders and the nascent coalition he is laying the groundwork for--even if this specific campaign is unsuccessful. Furthermore, this primary contest is far from over. It is now clear that a large part of the Democratic party wants a new New Deal. It's far from clear that Clinton, despite pressure, will deliver on these demands. Thus far, my inclination is to think that she will not. If she wins the nomination, I hope she proves me wrong.

But in either case, after this campaign, I'm going to do whatever small things I can to ensure that this upsurge around some very important ideas is not simply swept under the rug by party establishment drones.posted by CincyBlues at 3:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [23 favorites]

Hillary has been my choice and hope for a long time. She's not perfect - not by a long way, and has more than a few faults and problems. But, she has far more actual, deep, foreign policy experience than all of the original and now other candidates in both main parties running for POTUS put together. And when the shit goes down and Putin starts sending troops into e.g. the Estonian city of Narva to "protect" the Russian minority there, it will be far, far better to have Hillary as Commander in Chief and POTUS than anyone else running. If it's Trump, then by this time next year ... let's not think about that.

I am looking forward to Obama, Bill Clinton, Carter, the Castro brothers, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and hopefully Bernie all stumping and raising money for Clinton and the Democrats, when the time comes.

Yes. I'm hoping that the quartet of Obama, Warren, Biden and Sanders will give their completely unambiguous endorsement as soon as this gets wrapped up. Especially as the chances of the Republicans being unified behind whichever candidate they throw up aren't good.posted by Wordshore at 3:50 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

The Democrats have so much strength and depth in their field, and that's going to make a huge difference vs. whoever the GOP throws against them.

I of course, as a progressive who is absolutely terrified at the prospect of one of these Republican assholes taking the White House, controlling all three branches of government, and finding ways to further deconstruct this country, hope very much that this is the result.

I hope that Hillary can pull this off if she's the nominee. The fact that she is not, by the numbers, bringing in anything like the enthusiasm and new voters that Obama did is extremely troubling to me. Frankly, Bernie Sanders should not be doing nearly as well as he is right now, he's really only gotten serious about doing a legit run (as opposed to a issues/awareness-raising primary campaign) in the last three or four months and he is running very close to Clinton who has been running officially for a year and unofficially for eight years.

Did Clinton even get as many total (raw) votes in Nevada as she did eight years ago against Obama? I don't think so, correct me if I'm wrong!

Surely the population of NV has gone up since 2008, and surely Sanders is not as strong a candidate as Obama was, so... where did those '08 Clinton votes go to? And are they going to come back in the general?

I saw a rumor on Twitter that the UNLV College Republicans were planning to attend both caucuses and troll the Dems. If true, that might explain the disgusting “English only” chants. (Of course, it was an unsourced rumor on Twitter, so take it with a huge grain of “citation needed.”)posted by nicepersonality at 4:08 PM on February 20, 2016

But, she has far more actual, deep, foreign policy experience than all of the original and now other candidates in both main parties running for POTUS put together. And when the shit goes down and Putin starts sending troops into e.g. the Estonian city of Narva to "protect" the Russian minority there, it will be far, far better to have Hillary as Commander in Chief and POTUS than anyone else running.

This is precisely the sort of policy prescription that sticks in my craw. How about we start working towards a different kind of foreign policy. One which is less "Twilight of Empire" and more "community of principle" oriented. Some folks scoffed at the Kissinger ties, trying to minimize them and what they imply regarding the realpolitick foundation of our foreign policy. But not me. I'm a Vietnam era vet. I fucking remember.posted by CincyBlues at 4:09 PM on February 20, 2016 [19 favorites]

Anybody got a link for the official South Carolina results?posted by Justinian at 4:14 PM on February 20, 2016

Adding: not to mention all the murder and mayhem we have caused in the last 40 years. That mountain of dead bodies (including children, Ms. Albright) that we so assiduously avoid thinking about? There is plenty of blame to go around in the Democratic party.

I find that I am now angry. Forgive me. I'm logging off and picking up my guitar.posted by CincyBlues at 4:14 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

But the reverse of that is also true; Sanders isn't getting nearly as many votes in Nevada as Obama (or Clinton) did in 2008.

Point taken. I don't think either has done a great job of explaining why they are the most electable candidate.posted by tivalasvegas at 4:15 PM on February 20, 2016

How about we start working towards a different kind of foreign policy. One which is less "Twilight of Empire" and more "community of principle" oriented.

That's very nice for you, but over here in the real world the people of eastern Ukraine, of Crimea, of Georgia and of nations (in and out of NATO) increasingly probed by an expansionist and unstable Russian leader who will just mock, then ignore, any "community of principle" notion, may feel massively differently based on their actual experiences. If you put down your guitar for a few minutes, here's a horribly plausible documentary on a quite possible chain of events.posted by Wordshore at 4:20 PM on February 20, 2016

Can you please advise on the state of our mineshaft gap, Wordshore?posted by entropicamericana at 4:23 PM on February 20, 2016

Good thing I refreshed. I logged back in. You know, I would love to have this debate with you, Wordshore, but it would be a total derail. I'm much more well-read and informed than you suppose. But, in the interest of amity, I'm gonna pass for now. Maybe we'll have an opportunity to discuss this at a later date.posted by CincyBlues at 4:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

This is going to be an absolute apocalypse for the Republican down-ticket races. We're taking back the Senate.posted by leotrotsky at 4:32 PM on February 20, 2016

Good thing I refreshed. I logged back in. You know, I would love to have this debate with you, Wordshore, but it would be a total derail. I'm much more well-read and informed than you suppose. But, in the interest of amity, I'm gonna pass for now. Maybe we'll have an opportunity to discuss this at a later date.

I'm supposing nothing. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, and that we don't end up debating this under a future "Military crisis in the Baltic States" MetaFilter thread. We'll see.posted by Wordshore at 4:34 PM on February 20, 2016

over here in the real world the people of eastern Ukraine, of Crimea, of Georgia and of nations (in and out of NATO) increasingly probed by an expansionist and unstable Russian leader who will just mock, then ignore, any "community of principle" notion, may feel massively differently

What else should the US have done / be doing in Ukraine? Send troops to the Crimea? Get into a hot war with Russia? NOPE NOPE NOPE, I lived through the last six years of the Cold War and that is just plenty of nuclear annihilationism for me. Over here in my real world I'd like to not be converted into a field of irradiated glass.

We can keep ignoring root causes while jumping into foreign interventions at the last minute before our economic interests or full-on genocide is threatened, which is the US modus operandi since WWII, or we can actually say that we as the most economically and militarily powerful country are going to work with an actual international coalition to address the root causes of war through intentional economic development (that works for the economies of the countries in need and not for the global 1%). Clinton has not demonstrated that she is going to move toward the latter policy, which sucks. She has undisputed experience in diplomatic affairs and I would hope that she could articulate not just a firefighting strategy but a fire prevention strategy.posted by tivalasvegas at 4:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [17 favorites]

Latest R SC primary results numbers (per MSNBC) with 4% reporting:

Trump 34%
Cruz 21%
Rubio 21%
Bush 10%
Kasich 7%
Carson 6%

Assuming these results generally hold -- I think Kasich drops. Carson is doing surprisingly well (e.g., better than 1%). The big question is whether Jeb! drops to clear the not-totally-insane lane for Rubio.posted by tivalasvegas at 4:45 PM on February 20, 2016

The AP has called it for Trump already -- How does that happen when there's only 2% reporting? Is that based solely on exit polls?posted by MysticMCJ at 4:47 PM on February 20, 2016

Carson was beat by "Other" in NH, so I guess he is doing better....posted by MysticMCJ at 4:47 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I bet this is it for JEB. He can acknowledge the party has gone insane whether he will articulate it or not. I think dragging ol' Barbara on the campaign trail was as last ditch as he's going to get.posted by readery at 4:51 PM on February 20, 2016

Record turnout again for the GOP in South Carolina.

Has anyone seen any numbers on how many of Trump's voters are new/infrequent voters? I wonder how much of that is driven by Trump bringing a whole new constituency out to the polls, vs. how much is organic excitement for Republicans in general. Not that the difference would matter in the general - I'm just curious how much of his success is with newer voters vs. reliable Republican voters.posted by dialetheia at 4:51 PM on February 20, 2016

Democrats should be fucking terrified.

Democrats? How about, all Americans? Or maybe the world?

This is why I've felt resentful of how Clinton has used her power and influence in the party to shut down most potential candidates before this race ever started. We should have had more candidates to choose from.posted by LooseFilter at 4:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [15 favorites]

Most of the bookies aren't showing odds, or updating them, while they wait for SC results to come in, but those that are are sending Jeb out to much longer odds than earlier today. 18/1 - ouch. Wondering if/when he quits the race, what his reaction to reporters "Will you endorse Marco?" questions will be.posted by Wordshore at 4:54 PM on February 20, 2016

Let's all take a moment to reflect on the fact that as of now the Republican voters of two different states have declared openly and to the world that they want Donald J. Trump, reality star and renowned buffoon, to be President of the United States of America.posted by Justinian at 4:54 PM on February 20, 2016 [18 favorites]

"The AP has called it for Trump already -- How does that happen when there's only 2% reporting? Is that based solely on exit polls?"

I'm sure some of it is exit polls, but it's largely local knowledge (they'll be relying on local experts and local reporters) and projections for specific regions/precincts/etc. Like, to give a super-simple example, if it's the 2008 presidential election and rural downstate Illinois, which is very Republican territory, is reporting its totals first and voting overwhelmingly Obama, it's pretty safe to call Illinois for Obama because Chicago, being Democratic territory, is going to go Obama. You do this right down to local precinct levels, where you're working for the local newspaper watching returns on election night and you see that the wealthy Republican-leaning neighborhood have all voted Democrat for sheriff, you don't really need to wait for the Democratic precinct results to come in. (However, if the GOP-leaning precincts are turning in normal GOP numbers and it's an evenly-split district, you can't really call anything until you see some other precincts.)

So basically they've got years of sampling experience with likely voters and bellwether precincts and they're checking those numbers and making these projections as local totals roll in. For statewide races, especially if there's been advance polling, they usually do PRETTY well. (Local races where personalities can matter more and races can hinge on 100 votes are harder.)

I've sat with both local reporters and local politicians doing these projections, you can actually pick up the technique pretty quickly and if you have a media or politics friend who'll sit with you obsessively refreshing the county vote reports as they come in, they'll narrate for you, "Oh, I see neighborhood X has gone overwhelmingly democrat in the attorney general race, which is unexpected and may drive downballot races ... but neighborhood Y has really, really anomalously low turnout so I wonder if there's a problem with those numbers ..." and give you an idea how they do it.posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Let's all take a moment to reflect on the fact that as of now the Republican voters of two different states have declared openly and to the world that they want Donald J. Trump, reality star and renowned buffoon, to be President of the United States of America.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."posted by entropicamericana at 4:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

How about, all Americans? Or maybe the world?

All of the above.

how much of that is driven by Trump bringing a whole new constituency out to the polls, vs. how much is organic excitement for Republicans in general

I'd love to see that breakdown somehow too. Trump clearly has his own constituency of zero-information voters, but it's got to have a ceiling, and might be canceled out in a general election scenario by sane people refusing to vote for him, or turning out to vote against.

On the other hand, Hilary's condescending, lecturing, fuck your millennial idealism victory speech is doing her damnedest to drive off every last Bernie supporter she can manage. She's an astoundingly bad candidate.posted by T.D. Strange at 5:00 PM on February 20, 2016 [17 favorites]

A few months back, so many people said that Trump will never make it this far or that he definitely had no plans to actually run this far. And now we have a genuine facist who advocates for shooting muslims dipped in pigs blood in the lead, and he has a reasonable chance of winning the primary. We should all be afraid.posted by MysticMCJ at 5:01 PM on February 20, 2016

On the other hand, Hilary's condescending, lecturing, fuck your millennial idealism victory speech is doing her damnedest to drive off every last Bernie supporter she can manage. She's an astoundingly bad candidate.

I don't think you're representative of the electorate as a whole. Her victory speech seemed perfectly normal to me, even somewhat above average.posted by Justinian at 5:03 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Ok, in what way was her victory speech different from basically every other victory speech ever?posted by Justinian at 5:07 PM on February 20, 2016

I don't think any of us is representative of the election as a whole, and there's no point in arguing that someone's reaction to a speech is invalid because they don't speak for everyone.posted by teponaztli at 5:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't think you're representative of the electorate as a whole.

But it's not the electorate as a whole she has a specific problem with - it's millenials, where she again lost by a 70%+ margin. Young people arguably won us the election in 2008 and 2012 - I'm sure people will generally line up for the general election, but she doesn't just need people to get in line, she needs their enthusiasm and turnout.posted by dialetheia at 5:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [11 favorites]

A friend of mine who's plugged into Republican politics swears up and down that they're planning for a brokered convention (and just no longer talking about it publicly). He says they will never let Trump be the nominee.posted by sallybrown at 5:09 PM on February 20, 2016

Ok, I think the reaction was invalid not because it didn't speak for everyone but because it was so out of proportion to anything that could reasonably be read into what was pretty much a bog-standard victory speech. I get the impression some people wouldn't be happy unless Clinton was grovelling and begging for forgiveness for her myriad sins.posted by Justinian at 5:10 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I would have preferred Clinton's speech gestured more explicitly toward party unity as Sanders' New Hampshire speech did. I also wasn't fond of her repeating the dismissive and inaccurate "single issue" jab.posted by audi alteram partem at 5:10 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Thanks for the links to the speeches. I encourage people to read them for context.posted by Justinian at 5:11 PM on February 20, 2016

I think that empty Supreme Court seat is what's going to turn millenials out.posted by sallybrown at 5:12 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's the way she argues against classic liberal policy goals like single payer using Republican framing about "free stuff".posted by dialetheia at 5:12 PM on February 20, 2016 [15 favorites]

And just to be clear, I don't want Clinton to be "grovelling and begging for forgiveness of her myriad sins."posted by audi alteram partem at 5:12 PM on February 20, 2016

Let's all take a moment to reflect on the fact that as of now the Republican voters of two different states have declared openly and to the world that they want Donald J. Trump, reality star and renowned buffoon, to be President of the United States of America.

It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together. Your generation is the most tolerant, and connected our country has ever seen. In the days ahead we will propose new ways for more Americans to get involved in national service and give back to our communities because everyone of us has a role to play in building the future we want.

Washington is never going to have all the answers, but for every problem we face, somewhere someone in America is solving it, and we need you to be part of that exciting journey we can make together.

I read that as a direct shot at young people, lecturing them for daring to support Bernie over her. In context of her stepped up attacks and lecturing tone this week, it's not helpful for her to be extorting support rather than inspiring it. I think her splits with young people support that position, and I find her lack of a conciliatory tone or anything remotely approaching enthusiasm among the demographic that won both elections for Obama EXTREMELY troubling.posted by T.D. Strange at 5:14 PM on February 20, 2016 [18 favorites]

work with an actual international coalition to address the root causes of war through intentional economic development (that works for the economies of the countries in need and not for the global 1%)

That's also been happening since the end of World War II. China is probably the biggest example that now has over 200 million people living in a middle class level of development. At the start of relations, the gambit was an economically developed and politically connected China would be better for the world than a China that 's economically weak and politically isolated. It's not perfect at all, since some thought there would eventually be democratic reform, entrenched corruption in the old government are just even more distorted with money involved, and there's pollution. But, it seems to be working, for now.posted by FJT at 5:14 PM on February 20, 2016

ugh just seeing the words AWAITING TRUMP VICTORY SPEECH at the bottom of the screen is causing my heart minor palpitations. I tried to explain to the stupid thing that this is just about who won the South Carolina primary and that it should just shut up and keep pumping blood around my body, etc. but l think the poor organ is still sorta anxious.posted by tivalasvegas at 5:19 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't know what to say, TD Strange. If you can read "and we need you to be part of that exciting journey we can make together" as a scuzzy shot at young people, extortion, and a lecturing tone I don't know how we could possibly communicate. It's so far outside what I can see as a reasonable read.posted by Justinian at 5:20 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

There must be enormous behind the scenes pressure now for Carson and Kasich to get out of the race now, which would probably let Rubio or Cruz overtake Trump before it's too late to avoid a brokered convention.posted by joeyh at 5:20 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

It'll turn out Millenials who already usually vote. People who are infrequent voters... I'm really not sure it will be enough. We don't just need the usual dutiful turnout - as the last round of midterms indicated, that isn't enough - we need genuine excitement. Clinton pulling 14% among people younger than 30 doesn't indicate much excitement for her at all, and it really concerns me me since our coalition basically falls apart without the youth vote. Young people tend to be much less susceptible to the "But the Supreme Court!" appeals in my experience, no matter how correct those appeals might be.

Justinian, obviously the cheap shot was this line: "It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together"posted by dialetheia at 5:23 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

Well, regardless of your feeling on this specific speech, her objective numbers with voters under 30 are beyond horrible and speak for themselves. In a turnout election, that's a huge, huge problem that she needs to fix, literally for the good of the world.posted by T.D. Strange at 5:23 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together. Your generation is the most tolerant, and connected our country has ever seen.

Condescending and pandering. Young leftists don't want their egos stroked, and they can see right through bullshit like this.posted by Faint of Butt at 5:24 PM on February 20, 2016 [17 favorites]

So grateful I live in a solid blue state so I don't have to hold my nose and vote for that DINO in November, if worst comes to worst.posted by entropicamericana at 5:25 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I find her lack of a conciliatory tone or anything remotely approaching enthusiasm among the demographic that won both elections for Obama EXTREMELY troubling.

I thought Clinton's speech was pretty boilerplate, neither particularly inspiring nor offputting. I did give sideeye to the "not a single issue candidate" comment noted above, that wasn't helpful.posted by tivalasvegas at 5:27 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Justinian, obviously the cheap shot was this line: "It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together"

"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."posted by Justinian at 5:30 PM on February 20, 2016

If you can read "and we need you to be part of that exciting journey we can make together" as a scuzzy shot at young people, extortion, and a lecturing tone I don't know how we could possibly communicate. It's so far outside what I can see as a reasonable read.

"It can't be just about what we're going to give you", immediately following a line about reducing interest rates on student loans, is obviously a rebuke to Sanders supporters, especially as her campaign has been pushing the Republican "they just want free stuff" line.

No longer under 30, but usually considered a "millenial", and the speech is pretty repellent to me. Talk about making a "ladder of opportunity" and pandering to small-business owners is the same neoliberal bullshit that's been shoved down our throats since we've been politically conscious. Not a bridge I'm interested in being sold.posted by junco at 5:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [27 favorites]

Does Bush drop out if he finishes at around 8%? How can he keep going?posted by Justinian at 5:32 PM on February 20, 2016

I thought it was the turnout among minority voters that won the elections for Obama.

Young leftists don't want their egos stroked, and they can see right through bullshit like this.

They don't want their egos stroked, but they are thin skinned enough to be insulted by this? Okay, I guess this is what people mean with eating crackers.posted by FJT at 5:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Does Bush drop out if he finishes at around 8%? How can he keep going?

I think he'll stay if he finishes in fourth (which is where he is now, with 33% of the votes in). Kasich may drop out, though. (Maybe not, if he wants to try and beat Jeb in the "Not Trump, Not Crazy, and Not a Robot" category.) But it might be time for Carson to put his campaign in the ancient grain silos.posted by sallybrown at 5:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Asking for the help of all Americans seems pretty different from telling Millenials they need to work harder in exchange for all the awesome stuff we are doing for them.posted by snofoam at 5:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Oh man, Jeb! is talking. Come on Jeb!, drop out. I can't watch the pain any more.posted by Justinian at 5:40 PM on February 20, 2016

A friend of mine who's plugged into Republican politics swears up and down that they're planning for a brokered convention (and just no longer talking about it publicly). He says they will never let Trump be the nominee.

Oh wow, I would love to see that. Do it, Republicans. Trump's already running a spite campaign powered by a personal vendetta against Jeb!, and that was over some business deal. Do you want to see what happens when you cheat him of his rightfully-earned nomination? He'd just run third party and it would totally sink their nominee even if he has no hope of winning at that point.posted by indubitable at 5:42 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

This isn't directed at any particular comment, but I'm always kind of skeptical of the whole "demographic x delivered victory y" type analysis. Winning happens as a coalition is built; ultimately, a millenial vote has the same value as a retiree vote, a Latino vote, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat vote, whatever. It's about increasing the turnout at the margin.posted by tivalasvegas at 5:42 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

This Jeb! speech is something else.posted by sallybrown at 5:42 PM on February 20, 2016

I actually feel bad for the guy. I don't think he would be a good president but I don't think he's a scumbag ego-driven megalomaniac like most of the others. As someone said before, I bet he would be a great high school principal.posted by Justinian at 5:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Personally, while I'm prepared to suck it up and vote for the Democrat regardless, I really feel like I've been thrown under the bus this election cycle by the DNC and Secretary Clinton. I mean, Senator Sanders is only holding on because hes struck a chord with some part of the electorate, but the truth is this was all supposed to be a dog and pony show anyways. Long before the primary even began in shadowy back room meetings a decision was made that Secretary Clinton would be the nominee. It was Secretary Clinton's turn, you see, and no other candidate would do.

Except that is unfair to me as an educated voter. I don't want to vote for someone just because 'its their turn.' That isn't how we the American people are supposed to elect a President. I want the best qualified person to be President. Yes, I realize Secretary Clinton has held public office many times, I also understand she was first lady for 8 years. To be honest, I don't like her. I mean not as a person, I'm sure shes a fine human being, I don't like her as a politician. I don't feel like she represents me well, I feel like I'm a pawn to her, a political piece to be manipulated. She'll promise me things, say whatever she must to get elected, and then I feel like I'm going to be left out in the cold. The day after inauguration, we'll pass each other on the street and she'll pretend she doesn't even know me. Promises? Hah, look, this is the real world kid. Integrity is for the plebes.

Please do not accuse me of unexamined sexism. I really like Elizabeth Warren, I would love to hear her debate Senator Sanders. I'll be happy when she runs for President, but even then I won't be uncritical of her just because shes a woman. That strikes me as an even worse form of sexism. I'm not saying we the American people are not allowed to have a mediocre female President, because afterall we've had many mediocre male Presidents. But, I dislike having a mediocre President of any gender rammed down my throat.posted by getting_back_on_track at 5:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [28 favorites]

Young people arguably won us the election in 2008 and 2012

As comforting this myth may be to you, it isn't born out by the election results. For example for 2012:

People 18 to 29 voted at 60% for Obama but represented only 19% of the vote.

Young people simply don't have a very high turnout. It is stretching the truth to say that young people won the election for Obama. As long as young people have a fairly low turnout, their priorities will not be the majority electorate priorities.posted by JackFlash at 5:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yes that is a weird picture they have chosen of himposted by Wordshore at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2016

Millennials are coming out of college, saddled with 5 or 6 figure debt, poor job prospects, no hope of job security ever, bad health insurance options, little chance of ever owning a home, possibly supporting elderly parents, etc. To act as if they're just spoiled children wanting a pony is extremely insulting. Also, many millennials see boomers as the generation that used social welfare to get ahead then burned down that safety net for younger generations. If anything it's the boomers that are the "takers."posted by melissasaurus at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [34 favorites]

Maybe older people just don't understand why young people would be so outraged about the college situation or something? For most of us, being lectured about how selfish we are for wanting "free stuff" by people who went to college back when you could pay tuition just by working a summer job is pretty insulting. Through about 1980, you could afford full-time tuition by working around 14 weeks - today, you couldn't afford it even by working full-time year-round. Young people are starting their careers with nearly a mortgage's worth of debt just to have a shot at getting a decent job. A college education is the equivalent of what a high school education used to be in today's job market. It would be like expecting boomers to go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt just to go to high school. From the perspective of millenials, expecting us to go into 5 and 6 figures worth of debt just to get a reasonable middle-class job is a much rawer deal than those lecturing us received. It feels like baby boomers pulling the safety net that they benefited from out from under us, then blaming us for being selfish when we object (on preview, what Room-641A said!)

It is stretching the truth to say that young people won the election for Obama.

That wasn't a national-scale analysis, if you bothered to click through - it made specific claims about margins of victory in swing states:

"Obama easily won the youth vote nationally, 67 percent to 30 percent, with young voters proving the decisive difference in Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to an analysis by the Center for Research and Information on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. Obama won at least 61 percent of the youth vote in four of those states, and if Romney had achieved a 50-50 split, he could have flipped those states to his column, the study said."posted by dialetheia at 5:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [19 favorites]

crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentations of their women, etc.posted by indubitable at 5:54 PM on February 20, 2016

Money can matter more to the outcomes of congressional and state races because of relative scale. Millions of dollars spent in these contests can swamp the competition and help swing close elections, especially by influencing low-information voters. Merely the threat of such spending gets the attention of candidates, who worry about the next super PAC to line up against them.

Even more significant, big money skews public policy in the direction of the wealthiest donors. In Illinois, a handful of the super-rich, including hedge-fund billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin, played a key role in getting Republican Bruce Rauner elected governor with an agenda to slash government spending, impose term limits and weaken employee unions. Hedge funds have used campaign money and lobbying to block a potential bankruptcy declaration by Puerto Rico that could help its people but hurt bondholders’ interests.

We’re supposed to be in a post-earmark era, yet Congress’s recent must-pass omnibus bill to fund the government was full of special interest deals backed by big spenders. The New York Times reported that “as congressional leaders were hastily braiding together a tax and spending bill of more than 2,000 pages, lobbyists swooped in to add 54 words that temporarily preserved a loophole sought by the hotel, restaurant and gambling industries, along with billionaire Wall Street investors, that allowed them to put real estate in trusts and avoid taxes.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid supported the language, and the company of one of Reid’s top donors admitted to being among those “involved in the discussions with congressional staff members.”

This is how money influences American politics these days. In the wake of Citizens United, donors can spend ever greater sums in ever closer coordination with their supported candidates. Loose campaign finance rules grease the wheels for industry lobbyists to work in the shadows, securing big private benefits in bills the public scarcely pays attention to. The threat of big money scares politicians away from taking positions against the donor class.

The legacy of Citizens United is not about the ultra-wealthy simply buying elections or about politicians on the take. Money can’t buy you Jeb. Instead, we face a subtler but equally pernicious rise of a plutocratic class capturing private benefits for personal gain.

Bernie Sanders is not wrong about the pernicious effects of big money on American politics, but I think it's a Very Good Result that Bush, after raising $160 million, far more (I think) than anyone else has spent, at least on the R side, still couldn't make a dent. It means, a little surprisingly to me at least, that advertising dollars spent do not trump (hah see whut I did etc) everything else.

I hope he at least has the human decency not to go after Bush after he has already dropped out.

"It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together"

It's not hers or theirs to give. It's ours. Her words betray her true sentiment imho.posted by ian1977 at 5:59 PM on February 20, 2016 [24 favorites]

That's no coincidence. White nationalist groups have been pretty open about their support for Trump. And he's in South Carolina.posted by indubitable at 6:00 PM on February 20, 2016

getting_back_on_track articulated my feelings about Secretary Clinton very nicely. I'll go and vote in the general as part of my children about their duties as citizens, and I'll probably vote for Hillary, but I'll have no enthusiasm for it.posted by wintermind at 6:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I kind of feel like Jeb! dropping out is like I'm a kid stuck in a room with a big scary dog and my mom just left and turned the light off when she went.posted by sallybrown at 6:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

So, I just got home from Reno, where I spent the morning canvassing for Bernie and serving as a observer for one of the caucuses to ensure that votes were counted correctly.

I sort of thought all the accusations of foul play by Bernie supporters in Iowa about coin flips etc was just sour grapes, but after seeing my Hillary counterpart basically do everything in her power to ensure "her side" won, I'm less certain it's all sour grapes. She screamed at Bernie supporters, told them what they could and could not do (incorrectly), and tried to take over the actual caucus process (and even succeeded for a minute until the chair had had enough). It was just a tense mess. Of course this could have just been a single overzealous person being overzealous, but given some of the other things I'm hearing about Hillary, maybe it's actually business as usual? I hope not - I want to think better of her and her campaign than that.

As far as the Bernie side goes, even though Reno turned out decisively for Bernie, the mood at the campaign office was (understandably) super dejected. I think everybody knew that this was his best chance to build momentum and turn the media narrative about Hillary's inevitability around. I unfortunately think that, barring major scandals, he's a real long shot to win the nomination.posted by zug at 6:02 PM on February 20, 2016 [14 favorites]

I don't want to vote for someone just because 'its their turn.' That isn't how we the American people are supposed to elect a President. I want the best qualified person to be President.

There are people who actually believe that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified for the job and they vote.

And people, even people on the same "side" feel differently about who's best for the job.

Even eight years ago when I supported Obama, I was hopeful he would win, but at the same time I thought Hillary Clinton would have been good for the job too. In my mind, anyone that reaches the end of the process is qualified.posted by FJT at 6:05 PM on February 20, 2016

Even eight years ago when I supported Obama, I was hopeful he would win, but at the same time I thought Hillary Clinton would have been good for the job too. In my mind, anyone that reaches the end of the process is qualified.

Um, Donald Trump? He is the clear frontrunner at the moment.posted by zug at 6:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

They didn't want Huerta to translate because she's a partisan Hillary supporter, apparently.

I can think of approximately seventy million better ways to express that than chanting "English only."posted by Etrigan at 6:09 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

The video that was posted as proof that I linked to earlier really made it sound like someone was yelling "neutral" not "English-only," but it was definitely short and I'm not sure that's the only thing that was happening. If that happened, it's awful and I don't think most Sanders supporters want people like that on our side.posted by dialetheia at 6:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

Yes, I don't think there's been conclusive proof of the "English-only" accusation though, seeing as how we've only heard it from Hillary supporters. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it's worth getting confirmation of these things.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:15 PM on February 20, 2016

I understand that universal access to college would be helpful for millenials and it's probably a solid long term policy goal even though it's unlikely to receive solid electoral support because voters over and over have slashed funding for university education and are unlikely to reverse that trend.

Social programs that only target a small percentage of voters at any given moment tend to be less than popular because unfortunately Americans seem yo get pissed at the idea of someone getting something that they don't get.

The end result is that the have nots continue to bicker over a declining portion of the pie. Witness the age divide in this thread between Boomers and Millenials.posted by vuron at 6:18 PM on February 20, 2016

Just as a data point, and I am not one for paying close attention, I admit, but: I see no such thing. I'm not even sure how you would, without knowing the age of commenters here.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:22 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

So what happens to Bush's (hundred million) SuperPAC buxxx now that he's out?posted by Rhaomi at 6:23 PM on February 20, 2016

[Deleted the foray into "well IF this happened ..." because there were some personal insults, and then while I was deleting there were some follow-on comments that were fine but I deleted them because they lost their context and were quoting deleted comments. Feel free to repost with the same points, but avoid directly attacking other MeFites. Sorry, this is moving super-fast.]posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:24 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

He doesn't control it, that's the whole point of a super PAC right? So I assume they'll just redirect the money hose toward Rubio. Or against Trump which is basically the same thing.posted by tivalasvegas at 6:25 PM on February 20, 2016

So what happens to Bush's (hundred million) SuperPAC buxxx now that he's out?

I read somewhere a few days back that he's down to something like $15 million left, so: it's mostly just burned, I guess.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:25 PM on February 20, 2016

So, what happened to Ted Cruz? Aren't evangelicals his base? Shouldn't South Carolina have been a big win for him?posted by leotrotsky at 6:26 PM on February 20, 2016

Boomers have been described as takers in this very thread stavros.

I am solidly gen X so I tend to get annoyed at both Boomers and Millenials but at the end of the day I realize those are artificial divisions used to separate voting blocks.posted by vuron at 6:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Um, Donald Trump? He is the clear frontrunner at the moment.

That's the Republican side. But at the same time, unless Obama is willing to declare a state of emergency if he wins, I really don't see how we can deny that Trump wins the general election if he wins.posted by FJT at 6:26 PM on February 20, 2016

Social programs that only target a small percentage of voters at any given moment tend to be less than popular because unfortunately Americans seem yo get pissed at the idea of someone getting something that they don't get.

The end result is that the have nots continue to bicker over a declining portion of the pie. Witness the age divide in this thread between Boomers and Millenials.

I agree with all of those points! That's why Sanders' programs aren't means-tested, unlike Clinton's; means-tested programs increase resentment and are more likely to be whittled away. Even if people have already gone to college, many of them have or will have children who would benefit from free public tuition, and the entire country benefits from having a competitive, educated labor force. Investing in our intellectual infrastructure instead of expecting our children to bear those spiraling costs is just smart national policy, not "free stuff" - and other countries have already figured that out.

That dynamic is also why Sanders' policies are intended to increase the portion of the pie we're fighting over. I mean, that's the very definition of fighting income inequality. I guess the difference is that he and his supporters still see that dynamic as something that could be changed through (you guessed it!) a political revolution, instead of being fatalistically resigned to the decline of the middle and working classes and accepting that the Reagan revolution will never, ever end.posted by dialetheia at 6:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [15 favorites]

I really don't see how we can deny that Trump wins the general election if he wins.

Well, we'll see, but I still have a tiny, foolish, probably-misguided faith in the American people. I don't think if he gets through to the point of getting the nomination as the Republican candidate, no matter who he ends up running against, that the broader electorate would vote for him in sufficient numbers.

But that may just be wishful thinking.

Honest question: would trump be any worse than Cruz?

I honestly think that in many ways, he'd actually be better. Cruz is a religious zealot and a True Believer, while Trump will sing whatever song that gets him the most dinner, and is, as far as he has an ideology, not really much of a conservative at all. But neither would be a happy outcome by any stretch of the imagination: it's the lesser of two very great evils.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:35 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

Agree stavros. Trump has no ideology other than Trump. And quite frankly I could see Trump 'art of the dealing' with a democratic legislature if that happened by some miracle in a couple years.posted by ian1977 at 6:37 PM on February 20, 2016

The Bush supporter interviewed on MSNBC who said she'd vote for Sanders or Clinton over Trump hoped me a little bitposted by prize bull octorok at 6:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

I can't see Trump sticking around past the first time it gets hard/boring. Cruz would dig in for the apocalypse.posted by Artw at 6:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

I really don't see how we can deny that Trump wins the general election if he wins.

I could see Trump quitting *after* he gets the nomination cuz someone gave him the stink eye or something.posted by ian1977 at 6:39 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

One way Trump would be worse is his inconsistency, complete unpredictability, and temper issues, I think. You can't have a President that behaves that erratically and is unable to escape pettiness.

Second, as bad as Cruz is, he doesn't seem to have Trump's strain of gross misogyny and tendency to see women as ornamental (and to see women who are not to his taste looks wise as less than human and deserving of hatred).

Third, Trump will surround himself with flatterers and yes men in the administration.

But Cruz will be far more effective at enacting his horrible policies, which outweighs a lot.posted by sallybrown at 6:41 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm happy that Bernie is inspiring millenials in a way the Obama inspired voters in 2008 because who you vote for in your 1st election is a primary determinant of your long term voting patterns.

My generation was inspired by Clinton 92, another cohort was inspired by Obama 08, maybe there is another cohort inspired by Sanders or Clinton 16.

I do think that Clinton will need to get a running mate (assuming that her structural advantage wins out) that helps her with millenials (and probably the hispanic vote assuming a Rubiobot brokered convention) but that is possible.

Warren would be a solid VP pick but there are definitely people that will not vote for 2 females on a ticket which is sad and disgusting but true.posted by vuron at 6:41 PM on February 20, 2016

Honest question: would trump be any worse than Cruz?

They would each be worse in their own ways, for different groups of people: if you really hate bees, being stuck in room full of angry bees might be 'worse' than a being trapped in a pool full of hungry sharks, but it's not as though either one is good.

I don't envy Republican voters this election cycle.posted by cjelli at 6:41 PM on February 20, 2016

The Bush supporter interviewed on MSNBC who said she'd vote for Sanders or Clinton over Trump hoped me a little bit

I think there might well be a large number of reasonable Republicans who think the same way, who might not vote at all if Trump were the nominee. And I think the RNC knows this, and that's part of why they are in panic mode.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:42 PM on February 20, 2016

I also agree with that sallybrown. Trump will continue to barf out hateful nonsense. I think his over the top ridiculousness might leave him more toothless than a weasely snake like Cruz who will actually have a coalition of republicans that hold their nose to work with him.posted by ian1977 at 6:43 PM on February 20, 2016

Having talked with lawyers who argued cases against Cruz as a lawyer the consensus is that a) he's insanely smart, b) that he's a true believer to a large degree and c) he's basically a sociopath.posted by vuron at 6:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, Trump is like Jason. Cruz is like the girl from The Ring.posted by ian1977 at 6:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

So if Jeb endorses Rubio (or Kasich) does it change anything? Or is he so far behind he has no supporters left?posted by mmoncur at 6:45 PM on February 20, 2016

I can't see warren being her pick. She will pick a centrist white dude to help soothe the fears of patriarchal fair weather dems.posted by ian1977 at 6:45 PM on February 20, 2016

"The screaming you hear now across the Potomac is the Washington cartel in full terror that the conservative grassroots are rising up." Ted Cruz, everybody.

why are these guys always going on about a CARTEL...is there some non-antitrust meaning I'm missing?posted by sallybrown at 6:46 PM on February 20, 2016

I agree. I work in a republican dominated industry and most are horrified by Trump. Several have said they would either not vote, vote a third party or consider (gasp) a democrat. They are appalled by the blatant bigotryposted by madamjujujive at 6:46 PM on February 20, 2016

Getting endorsed by Jeb might be like getting a valentine from Ralph Wiggum.posted by ian1977 at 6:47 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

I'm not sure that Jeb! can endorse Rubio; the vast majority of his attack ads up to now (in my region at least) were against Rubio. I'd imagine he'd go for Kasich who's the last one left in the "don't I seem* reasonable and statesmenlike?" camp.

(*might not actually be true)posted by TwoStride at 6:47 PM on February 20, 2016

I think given the Sanders insurgency that she has to pick someone with impeccable progressive credentials, agreed that it will probably be a man though.posted by tivalasvegas at 6:48 PM on February 20, 2016

So if Jeb endorses Rubio (or Kasich) does it change anything? Or is he so far behind he has no supporters left?

Even if every single Jeb! voter in SC voted Rubio today, Rubio would still be losing to Trump by 4%

If it was Romney winning with this margin, everyone would be talking about how he sealed it up today. No one has ever won both NH and SC and NOT been the Republican nominee. Don't let the "Rubio won with 3rd place" talk fool you, Trump has a COMMANDING position.posted by T.D. Strange at 6:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

The Bush supporter interviewed on MSNBC who said she'd vote for Sanders or Clinton over Trump hoped me a little bit

I think there might well be a large number of reasonable Republicans who think the same way, who might not vote at all if Trump were the nominee. And I think the RNC knows this, and that's part of why they are in panic mode.

She also said she was still holding out hope for someone else to jump into the race (even as a third party candidate). Most of the conservatives I know are of the old fashioned Preppy Handbook type (all for Jeb!) and they have just been kind of struck silent with horror over the past few months. Nobody seems to know what to do.posted by sallybrown at 6:49 PM on February 20, 2016

And probably from Ohio or Virginia -- if the Democrat nominee can rely on taking one or both of those states it becomes increasingly difficult for the Republican to find a path to an electoral college majority.posted by tivalasvegas at 6:50 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Warren needs to stay a senator, making her VP would be a waste. I'd also like to have a VP candidate young enough to run in eight years and Warren is almost as old as Clinton.posted by octothorpe at 6:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

I think given the Sanders insurgency that she has to pick someone with impeccable progressive credentials

I disagree. Hillary can not wait for the moment she can resume giving the middle finger to progressives after the Sanders campaign ends. In any event, she'll need to tack to the right to win over Trump (?) supporters. What a lovely sight that will be.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

Second, as bad as Cruz is, he doesn't seem to have Trump's strain of gross misogyny

I think that Cruz's dominionist beliefs and commitment to bringing them into the political world would mean far worse things for women, were he president, than a Trump (horrifying as he is) presidency would bring.posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:52 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

Yeah I can see a lot of the Bush voters going to Kasich which continues to keep the "establishment lane" split between the two. Plus I suspect much of Carson's vote will end up migrating to Cruz if Carson drops out (which who knows when that will happen, the man is not exactly in it to win it) so that will continue to divide any potential anti-Trump compromise voting bloc.posted by tivalasvegas at 6:52 PM on February 20, 2016

"The Bush supporter interviewed on MSNBC who said she'd vote for Sanders or Clinton over Trump hoped me a little bit"

My die-hard GOP mother, who has hated Hillary since 1992, told me that if Trump, Cruz, OR Rubio was the nominee, she would vote Hillary, which is basically the same thing as the Pope announcing he's converting to Hinduism. She has once or twice in the past not voted in a presidential election if the candidate the GOP offered was particularly bad, but she said that any of those three would be bad enough for the country that she would actually vote for their opponent to prevent them from winning. She said she basically feels the party has abandoned her and there's no party available to moderately conservative voters who aren't interested in culture-war issues but who object to the Democrats' fiscal policies. (She is also making Marge Simpson disapproval noises every time the GOP field talks about race or immigration.)

(She said she didn't know much about Sanders yet because she'd been following her party's primary more closely, but would consider him if he ended up the nominee. She just already knows Hillary.)posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

Bush supporters going to Kasich would probably just be a spoiler for Cruz. Trump wins that equation. If the establishment republicans really don't want trump to win then Kasich, Bush and Carson need to drop out and endorse....I dunno. Rubio?posted by ian1977 at 6:57 PM on February 20, 2016

Hillary can not wait for the moment she can resume giving the middle finger to progressives after the Sanders campaign ends. In any event, she'll need to tack to the right to win over Trump (?) supporters.

Maybe. I'm trying to be optimistic about her. And I think it's less that she needs to tack "to the right" so much as tack in an anti-establishment direction -- "populist", if you will. And as Sanders shows, populism doesn't need to mean right-wing Teapartyism or Trumpestry.posted by tivalasvegas at 7:03 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm shocked that Jeb! is out. I assumed he would be in till past Super Tuesday. Shit is getting real!posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:05 PM on February 20, 2016

For me it's all about her VP pick now. And winning in 2 years. Incrementalism for the meh.posted by ian1977 at 7:05 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have a feeling that by tomorrow Jeb! will no longer be running for President. Good times.

Was out so I missed all the fun, but at least I can enjoy an ITYS! Bye Jeb! You and your family deserve all the shit Trump gave ya.posted by Drinky Die at 7:05 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's fun to imagine Barbara slashing her oil portraits of him, smashing his busts, etc, tonight, in a rage of dynastic disappointmentposted by prize bull octorok at 7:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

Steve Kornacki says that Trump could potentially win all 50 delegates from SC tonight. Which is pretty shocking given he only got 33% of the vote. It's not winner take all but he's winning virtually everywhere.posted by Justinian at 7:09 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's really hard to see how Cruz can successfully win the nomination without doing better against evangelicals. Like 538 indicated there just isn't enough winner take all states that he can safely win the nomination.

Rubiobot basically has to be happy that he's the consensus mainstream pick because even if he can't win outright he can always win a brokered convention (unless they do something weird like draft Romney). Basically he needs to lock up the Bush and Kasich voters since both are effectively dead and continue sleepwalking through third place finishes. Actually Cruz staying in kinda helps Rubio because it helps prevent Trump from becoming too dominant.

But it will be very interesting if Trump leads going into a convention and then party shanks him because I think his vanity will compel him to run as a third party candidate.posted by vuron at 7:17 PM on February 20, 2016

As long as Barbara doesn't destroy Jr's nudes and dog paintings. Everyone deserves a legacy.posted by joeyh at 7:20 PM on February 20, 2016

Bush supporters going to Kasich would probably just be a spoiler for Cruz. Trump wins that equation. If the establishment republicans really don't want trump to win then Kasich, Bush and Carson need to drop out and endorse....I dunno. Rubio?

Sure. It's a tragedy of the commons* though -- everyone knows that the anti-Trump vote needs to coalesce around some non-Trump candidate to keep him out, but they can't agree on which person is the best (most electable) one to coordinate on.

As a neutral observer, I'm not sure myself whom they should choose. Rubio's got the youthfulness, charisma and demographic outreach to Latinos (I'm skeptical about that last point myself but I think Republicans really believe that pushing a brown guy to the front will magically make PoC forget that the party itself is white supremacist). As I've said before, I think Kasich probably holds up a bit better in the general just because he has some executive experience and generally sounds like he knows what he's talking about. But the point is, there's not a clearly superior non-Trump candidate.

Cruz further confounds the issue as he's also apparently unacceptable to elites and moderates in the Party for somewhat different reasons. So they really need to find a candidate who can quickly vacuum up 30-35% of the vote and take enough delegates to at least get a plurality that can be quickly crowned at the convention.

I'd put money on a contested Republican convention after tonight's results, to be honest. Which is the best result for me personally as someone who loves a good political train wreck; as a progressive, because anything that keeps the Republicans squabbling as long as possible is great; and as an American for the same reason.

Pass the popcorn, please.

In passing, it's deliciously ironic that the party opposed to any kind of environmental action is itself being destroyed by a tragedy of the commonsposted by tivalasvegas at 7:20 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Holy shit. That's just so pathetic and creepy.posted by octothorpe at 7:22 PM on February 20, 2016

Imagine having to endure family thanksgiving when Papa Bush and Barbara Bush point to Dubya and say to Jeb "Why couldn't you be more like your brother" I mean the absolute soul crushing nature of being negative compared to your fuckup of a brother must suck.

It's probably like what Regulus Black had to deal with in regards to being a virtual nobody in comparison to Sirius and Bellatrix.posted by vuron at 7:22 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Earlier today, I wrote "Nate Silver extrapolated a few minutes ago, based on what's left, and is predicting about a 5-6 point win for Clinton."

He wrote that when the vote was about 25% in, and when Clinton was only ahead by about 2.6%. And now, she's at 5.3% with 89% reporting.

Uh, I'm not so familiar with how Twitter works but aren't those tweets from like 6 months ago?posted by Justinian at 7:23 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

How is a tweet from last September relevant to this thread. Did you think he tweeted that tonite?posted by futz at 7:28 PM on February 20, 2016

If my candidate had been the presumed nominee of my party for a good eight years, I wouldn't be exactly crowing about a record of 1% victory, 21% loss and 5% victory in the first three primary elections.

We're all on the same side ultimately. I want Clinton to up her game because it looks like she's going up against one of (fascist / theocrat / possible robot) in the general. Not seeing it happen yet.posted by tivalasvegas at 7:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

So the next Republican debate is the 25th on CNN. I don't feel like I can predict where this race is going until after I see it. Republicans have had a tendency to go for electability in the end, which would mean Rubio, but I have no idea if that is holding true this time around. Rubio needs to prove he can stand up to Trump and he needs to prove he can survive whatever stabs in the back Cruz comes up with. Electability may not be enough this time around. If Trump remains the undoubted "alpha male" on stage, I think he's gonna win. I think Cruz will endorse Rubio when it's done, Trump is too much a fake conservative for Cruz, so maybe that will be what gives the contest to Rubio.posted by Drinky Die at 7:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Peoples belief that Romney could ever get another bite at the apple astonishes me. The sort of money and stakes involved in the presidential race - that's not a place where you field known losers. I think with the era of the Super PAC we're going to see that even somewhat extend to the primaries before long, but there's no question in my mind that nobody will ever get to piss away hundreds of millions in a nation-wide effort more than once.posted by phearlez at 7:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

A political reporter for Buzzfeed has two neutral sources confirming Dolores Huerta's claims.

Cruz is a megalomanic with his own agenda, truly believes he was called by God to usher America through the Tribulations, who has worked his entire life solely to become president and bottomless billionaire backing. He's not dropping out till the convention.posted by T.D. Strange at 7:36 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

I do think Cruz will wait until the last possible second, yeah.posted by Drinky Die at 7:38 PM on February 20, 2016

Clinton seems focused on doing what it takes to avoid a 2008 repeat (which seems like her campaign advisers have focused on) and are positioned to contest every state rather than risk being caucused to death ala Obama 08.

A win in Nevada will almost certainly stop some of the bleeding and then you have SC where she's still a massive favorite mainly due to her dominance among minority voters. Solid wins in NV and SC will basically strengthen her position going into Super Tuesday. Bernie is by no means out of the running but his chances of negating her strength before the big Super Tuesday states get to vote are running out.

Yes Hillary has significant problems moving forward but the general direction of the campaign seems to indicate that while it certainly won't be a coronation it's unlikely to be a repeat of 08 either. Considering that Sanders has repeatedly said that he's going to support the eventual nominee no matter what it just remains to be seen if the Bernie supporters that currently say that Clinton is a deal breaker will backtrack for the general election or if Stein will get a large number of protest votes in solidly blue and solidly red states.posted by vuron at 7:40 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

The Bush speech is about to re-run on MSNBC, FYI, if you missed it the first time.posted by tivalasvegas at 7:40 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Maybe Bush 41 could try to pull a Grover Cleveland.posted by FJT at 7:43 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

The Bush speech is about to re-run on MSNBC, FYI, if you missed it the first time.

Thanks, I'm there. I haven't enjoyed a brutal loss this much since we voted Santorum out in PA.posted by Drinky Die at 7:44 PM on February 20, 2016

Etrigan: I can think of approximately seventy million better ways to express that than chanting "English only."

Then breathe easy, because it's becoming clear that that didn't happen.

Here's a live stream from the caucus in question. It looks like what happened (starting around 53:33 in the stream) is someone in the audience says there needs to be a translator for those in the audience who only speak Spanish. The moderator says that the first Spanish speaker to get to the stage can do it (54:00). Confusion starts as Dolores Huerta starts heading for the stage, while you can hear someone else in the crowd saying "She's a surrogate!" (~54:13) There's confusion in the crowd, and you can hear someone shouting "neutral!" (~54:24-33) By now, Huerta is on stage and the moderator says "we already have one translator" but an alternative translator who is a Sanders supporter climbs up to the stage (54:37). The moderator seems kind of flustered, says he imagines about half the crowd speaks Spanish and says that if Huerta says anything pro-Hillary, they'd be able to catch it (55:04). There's some "come on!" from the crowd and someone speaking with the moderator on-stage (55:12) before the moderator says "We're going forward in English only" (55:17) and asks people to help translate for anyone next to them who doesn't speak English (55:34).

Obviously, there's no way to say from these videos that nobody in the crowd was saying those things. However, there have been other witness statements from Erin Cruz (towards the bottom) who said there was a "neutral" chant since Huerta was a vocal Clinton supporter and dressed head to toe in Clinton gear, but that the moderator was the only one who said "English only," and Susan Sarandon, who was also there and confirmed those points. Also, in an interview with CNN (see the 8:16 p.m. update on this page), Huerta's recap of the story no longer has anything about people chanting "English only," and seems to match what's shown in the videos.

There may have been some individual person in the crowd at one point who yelled "English only!" and wasn't captured on the videos. But it's pretty clear that the Sanders camp wasn't insisting on English only, since they were sending up a translator of their own, but rather that some were concerned about possible bias specifically from Huerta being the sole translator. To cast this story as a crowd of racist Sanders supporters chanting English only is pretty clearly misdescribing what actually took place (so much so that Snopes has already rated it an unqualified false) and I hope those rumors won't continue to spread.posted by cobra_high_tigers at 7:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [35 favorites]

Jebs face looks like it wants it's glasses back.posted by futz at 7:45 PM on February 20, 2016

Re: Ted Cruz's Canadian citizenship:

That is kind of nuts to me too. Like, what do you mean you went to Harvard Law School and never bothered to think maybe I am also a citizen of a country which has jus soli citizenship laws and on whose soil I was indeed born?posted by tivalasvegas at 7:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

He's got his brother's eyes. Bet that's why he started the campaign with glasses.posted by tivalasvegas at 7:46 PM on February 20, 2016

Jeb's son George Prescott Bush will probably be the next major hope to establish a dynastic ruling family. Unfortunately he's got a pretty decent shot as he's much more telegenic than his dad or uncle and he'll play solidly among Latino voters.posted by vuron at 7:53 PM on February 20, 2016

I wonder how many of the candidates wives are truly on board with their husbands presidential ambitions?posted by futz at 7:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

There may have been some individual person in the crowd at one point who yelled "English only!" and wasn't captured on the videos.

I totally wouldn't be surprised if that happened. And I know everyone's spirits are high just right after this primary, but I believe her claims that someone yelled at her "English only!" It shouldn't matter if this was a Sanders or Clinton supporter. That it even happened is shameful and should be called out.posted by FJT at 7:55 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

There absolutely should have been neutral translators at every caucus site. This is example #10,000 of how caucuses are poorly organized and undemocratic.posted by dialetheia at 7:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [21 favorites]

Here's a summary of the translation fiasco thing from ThinkProgress that basically reiterates the narrative above.

I will say that it is kind of a fuckup for the Democratic Party that they didn't make sure to have translators arranged for the caucuses. Having been in contentious / political meetings where some participants spoke only English, some only Spanish, and some were bilingual, I can attest that it is really frustrating and unfair (and unhelpful) to have non-neutral translating happening.posted by tivalasvegas at 8:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

"I wonder how many of the candidates wives are truly on board with their husbands presidential ambitions?"

I'm dead curious to see how Melania Trump plays with Trump supporters as the candidate families start getting more exposure. I mean, she seems like a nice person, smarter than Trump, sophisticated and cosmopolitan. But I wonder how a multi-lingual immigrant is going to be received by angry xenophobes who want to build a giant wall on the Mexican border.

Obviously she's also his third wife but I don't think GOP voters actually care about how many times a candidate has been married and divorced; I think divorce as an issue bothers evangelical voters but divorce-as-personal-history-for-a-candidate has never seemed to matter in my lifetime. She's also 20 years younger than he is but Trump will just announce that that's because he's winning and that will cut off that entire relatively irritating line of inquiry.posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:01 PM on February 20, 2016

Jeb's son George Prescott Bush will probably be the next major hope to establish a dynastic ruling family.

It's like he was bred specifically for the task. And how unoriginal are the Bush family naming conventions? I took the liberty of seeding a Markov chain with the Bush family tree, meet your future presidential candidates of 2088-2116, America:

Trump kicking Bush while he is down - that short-fingered vulgarian doesn't even have a whiff of noblesse oblige about him, it's salt the earth all the way.posted by madamjujujive at 8:03 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I mean, she seems like a nice person, smarter than Trump, sophisticated and cosmopolitan. But I wonder how a multi-lingual immigrant is going to be received by angry xenophobes who want to build a giant wall on the Mexican border.

She's European. They only hate the more melanin-rich kind of immigrant.posted by Justinian at 8:06 PM on February 20, 2016

By 2116 I bet we will have a Hillary Hussein Bush Sr.posted by ian1977 at 8:08 PM on February 20, 2016

I wouldn't be shocked if the Bush family were raising generations of Sarduakar in the swamps of Florida and the deserts of West Texas. After all gotta have the threat of overwhelming force in case the Clinton family tries to lead a rebellion of CHOAM.

I wonder what organizations the Spacing Guild and Sisterhood will come out ofposted by vuron at 8:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

There's a JEB Jr?!

That family tree is really interesting.posted by MysticMCJ at 8:20 PM on February 20, 2016

That it even happened is shameful and should be called out.

There is no evidence it DID happen, and plenty of reason for Hillary's supporters to keep insisting that it did, though. Which is again, why people don't like her.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:20 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

There is no evidence it DID happen, and plenty of reason for Hillary's supporters to keep insisting that it did, though. Which is again, why people don't like her.

Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. In the confusion of the event, somebody or somebodies could have yelled that out. Now, I completely believe she may have been mistaken in thinking a Sanders' supporter did that. But, as I said it doesn't matter which supporter it was. I've had assholes throughout my life making fun of my friends for having different names or not being able to speak English. And I've worked at call centers in California where when people find out my foreign sounding name or hear one of my coworker's accents, they loudly say they want to speak to a "real" American. So I am going to be just a little bit more sensitive about this and going to believe someone when they say that, even if I don't necessarily agree with their politics.posted by FJT at 8:29 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

"As America’s bridges, roads, and other infrastructure dangerously deteriorate from decades of neglect, there is a mounting sense of urgency that it is time to build a giant wall."posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:29 PM on February 20, 2016

Steinem, Lewis, now Huerta... which progressive icon of days gone by will be next to disgrace themselves with some ridiculous statement in an attempt to boost the Hillary campaign?

But the media is instead going to use this as another opportunity to lecture America about the misbehaved Bernie Bros.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:29 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

There is a tremendous difference between someone yelling it out and "Bernie supporters chanted..."posted by Drinky Die at 8:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [16 favorites]

John Lewis is one of the greatest living American heroes. Talking about how he has disgraced himself is not helping your cause and is one of the reasons people don't like your guy.posted by Justinian at 8:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

You can quibble around the use of the word "disgrace" or whatever but he did a really bad thing in promoting FUD on someone who fought for civil rights for what appears to be part of a campaign narrative.posted by Drinky Die at 8:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [15 favorites]

There is a tremendous difference between someone yelling it out and "Bernie supporters chanted..."

Yes, she's a Clinton supporter with her own sets of bias and seriously Sanders supporters and Sanders are blameless in this. I am just extra sensitive to something like this and would not be surprised that someone yelled it out in the room.posted by FJT at 8:39 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Talking about how he has disgraced himself is not helping your cause and is one of the reasons people don't like your guy.

And running a dishonest whisper campaign reminiscent of George W. v. John McCain in South Carolina is why others don't like Hilary.posted by T.D. Strange at 8:39 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

What "whisper campaign" has Hillary run that comes anywhere close to what GWB did to McCain in South Carolina?posted by sallybrown at 8:41 PM on February 20, 2016

Justinian, I'm not a Bernie supporter (but I can forgive you for that assumption since this is a campaign season and I'm attacking Hillary-related entities). I'm not a Democrat, nor a member of any political party. I just really despise what Hillary stands for and the way that her campaign is being run.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

What "whisper campaign" has Hillary run that comes anywhere close to what GWB did to McCain in South Carolina?

I don't really know how to compare "He fathered an illegitimate black child," and "He is lying about having worked for civil rights." I'll leave that to someone less drunk.posted by Drinky Die at 8:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

When did Hillary or her "whisper campaign" accuse Bernie of lying about having worked for civil rights? That's a rather exaggerated depiction of what John Lewis actually said - unless you're referring to something else.

Attacking a candidate's spouse and young child by stoking racism against her is always going to be way further out of bounds to me than attacking the actual person who chose to run.posted by sallybrown at 8:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

When did Hillary or her "whisper campaign" accuse Bernie of lying about having worked for civil rights?

I'm not sure what else you can conclude the message is when he comes out and says he has no memory of Bernie at the time and then Capeheart grabs the photo story and holds on with dear life to that sinking ship. Dirty politics doesn't work by having the candidate straight up make an accusation, it's all whispered bullshit.posted by Drinky Die at 8:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

When did Hillary or her "whisper campaign" accuse Bernie of lying about having worked for civil rights?

First there were Lewis' comments, which he later had to walk back and clarify because so many people interpreted him as saying that Sanders was lying about his background. Then around the same time, this story about civil rights-era photos being wrongly attributed to Sanders was broken by a reporter whose partner has worked for the Clinton State department and Foundation since 2004: "This picture right here that they’re sending around, trying to say that he’s been in the trenches, fighting for us, fighting for civil rights?” Capehart said. “That’s not Bernie Sanders. That’s Bruce Rappaport, a fellow student activist at the University of Chicago."

His story turned out to be completely false - somebody had requested that the University of Chicago library change the captions on the photos from Sanders to Bruce Rappaport in mid-January. Capehart still refused to retract the story even after the photographer confirmed that it was Sanders (and Capehart didn't contact the photographer before running with the story). That's all covered in this piece: The Jonathan Capehart saga, or why progressives don't trust the media. Taken together, many people believe that the Clinton campaign is trying to create an aura of doubt around Sanders' documented civil rights background.posted by dialetheia at 9:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [21 favorites]

Yeah, John Lewis's comments were a dick move, but nowhere near GWB vs. John McCain level. Really, it was more of a swiftboat-lite.posted by dinty_moore at 9:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

To me, Lewis was implying "Bernie didn't do anything big in the movement, he was a nobody. I never met him because he wasn't important, he wasn't a big leader like everyone is making him out to be." Not that "Bernie is lying to you despite the photo evidence that's all over the internet" which would be an incredibly dumb accusation.posted by sallybrown at 9:02 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

And I mean, I still have a lot of questions about how the birther whispers gained momentum during the 2008 primary too.

Not that "Bernie is lying to you despite the photo evidence that's all over the internet" which would be an incredibly dumb accusation.

Enough people took it that way that he had to clarify a few days later: "I was responding to a reporter’s question who asked me to assess Sen. Sanders’ civil rights record. I said that when I was leading and was at the center of pivotal actions within the Civil Rights Movement, I did not meet Sen. Bernie Sanders at any time. The fact that I did not meet him in the movement does not mean I doubted that Sen. Sanders participated in the Civil Rights Movement, neither was I attempting to disparage his activism. Thousands sacrificed in the 1960s whose names we will never know, and I have always given honor to their contribution."posted by dialetheia at 9:05 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I find that Obama whisper campaign way more offensive (again, because it stokes racism against somebody, especially someone who probably gets threats against his life on the reg). Still not as bad as bringing the candidate's child into things, but that was a clear case of bad faith on the part of the Clinton campaign, not even a surrogate.posted by sallybrown at 9:06 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't know why it has to be compared against other whisper campaigns to be problematic. The mysteriously changed photo captions and the Capehart story are the most troubling parts to me.posted by dialetheia at 9:07 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

As of 5 hours ago, Jeb Bush's Facebook site was encouraging people to buy Jeb! merch. The link to Jeb's dropping-out speech appeared 3 hours later. Womp-wompposted by dhens at 9:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended as a smear

Ugh, if Sanders really wanted to decrease Clinton's popularity with black voters, he should really try to find a subtle way to remind them of the 2008 primary season.

(which, as ugly as this one's gotten, is nowhere near as horrible. It's a wonder I voted for anyone)posted by dinty_moore at 9:17 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I'm surprised a lot of people seem to think it's been worse this year. It may just be that I'm less personally invested this time around but 2008 seemed off the charts worse in comparison to me.posted by Drinky Die at 9:19 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

I agree, 2008 was still much uglier. I can't remember how far into things we were by the time the "he's not a Muslim, as far as I know..." stuff started, though.posted by dialetheia at 9:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I dunno, maybe its because I'm a Sanders supporter and I'm on the losing end, but I feel like the primary is much more divisive this time around. At this point, I feel like establishment Democrats and portions of the Democratic base hate me at a personal level.

Those groups still want me to vote for their preferred candidate in the general, though .... which I will.posted by eagles123 at 9:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

I can't remember how far into things we were by the time the "he's not a Muslim, as far as I know..." stuff started, though.

Looking at the timestamp of the Guardian article, that was a few weeks after Super Tuesday. So, nowhere near the end of the eventual delegate-and-superdelegate slog.posted by dinty_moore at 9:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I could be wrong, but a lot of the 2008 ugliness was Hilary taking pages straight from the Republican playbook then too, was it not? It's not like this is her first go round, it doesn't take much at all for her to reach into the dirty tricks playbook, and if she's feeling really cornered, to the Lee Atwater stuff.

That's how she works, it's how she ran State see: the email scandal; and it's how a Clinton III White House will work.

That's why a lot of people don't trust her, even on her own side. She's a flawed candidate with 30 years of bad publicity, much of which is richly deserved. I don't want to see President Trump as much as anyone else, but Hilary Clinton as the only viable choice makes me ashamed to punch the 'D' ballot.posted by T.D. Strange at 9:41 PM on February 20, 2016 [14 favorites]

If she's all we've got to run against Trump then we may be mega-fucked.posted by Artw at 9:47 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

I could be wrong, but a lot of the 2008 ugliness was Hilary taking pages straight from the Republican playbook then too, was it not? It's not like this is her first go round, it doesn't take much at all for her to reach into the dirty tricks playbook, and if she's feeling really cornered, to the Lee Atwater stuff.

To be fair, the sexism against Clinton seemed much worse in 2008, too. As often as Clinton is called calculating, hard, emotionless, ect in the media these days, it seemed to happen ten times as often in 2008, with incredibly unflattering pictures to boot.

I mean, remember when there was the photo op where she broke down into tears as a way to show her 'feminine' side? What the fuck, America. What the actual fuck.

Clinton is a really a man, Bill would actually lead, Clinton is calculating, Obama is a Muslim, Obama has a crazy preacher, Obama isn't 'really' Black.... add in Prop 8 and the entire election cycle was a crash course in how to completely fail in intersectionality.posted by dinty_moore at 9:49 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

... So... what your saying is that I should be stocking up on cans of dog food and a can opener for the impending radioactive post-apocalyptic hellscape?posted by PROD_TPSL at 9:49 PM on February 20, 2016

I'm sure I would metabolize thirty years of being firehosed with heinous sexist bullshit and loathing with effortless grace and dignity.posted by prize bull octorok at 9:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

At this point, I feel like establishment Democrats and portions of the Democratic base hate me at a personal level.

That's a good point - the general temperature feels similar but I don't feel like there was nearly as much anger and resentment from the establishment towards Obama in 2008 as there has been towards the grassroots this year. It certainly has made me feel much less welcome in the party. Part of it has to be that the DNC stayed out of it almost entirely in 2008, whereas now it's run by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was Clinton's campaign chair in 2008.posted by dialetheia at 9:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

... So... what your saying is that I should be stocking up on cans of dog food and a can opener for the impending radioactive post-apocalyptic hellscape?

I'm sure I would metabolize thirty years of being firehosed with heinous sexist bullshit and loathing with effortless grace and dignity.

Wait, are you saying that enduring sexist attacks justifies stuff like smearing Obama as "not a Muslim as far as I know" and circulating pictures of him in Indonesian dress?posted by dialetheia at 9:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

... So... what your saying is that I should be stocking up on cans of dog food and a can opener for the impending radioactive post-apocalyptic hellscape?

Yes! The good news is that there is probably a buy one get one for 50% off deal somewhere. Remember when it used to be buy one get one free?posted by futz at 9:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

I can think that Hillary Clinton has been through more bullshit and subjected to more irrational hatred than any other living politician without it necessarily following that that justifies any particular thing she's done.posted by prize bull octorok at 10:07 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

I can think that Hillary Clinton has been through more bullshit and subjected to more irrational hatred than any other living politician without it necessarily following that that justifies any particular thing she's done.

Sure, but I don't see any other way to interpret your words than to characterize the smears you were responding to as not acting with "effortless grace and dignity" in the face of sexism. Maybe I misinterpreted the context of your statement - what was the behavior that you were characterizing that way if not the smears?posted by dialetheia at 10:12 PM on February 20, 2016

Sexism exists and Hillary has been thru hell because of sexism != Hillary is the right candidate

Racism exists and Ben Carson has been thru hell because of racism != Ben Carson is the right candidate.posted by ian1977 at 10:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

Merely pointing out that politicians are politicians, and politics is politics.

The bulk of this thread has been one long series of attacks on Hillary Clinton, but when it comes down to it, we are dealing with two generally well-meaning but disingenuous career polticians / sausage makers, surrounded by arguably less honest, career-minded individuals, trying to get and maintain their own proximity to power... all trying to put a shine on their particular ball of mud. (Mud perhaps being a bit generous, really.)

The idea that getting rid of Citizens United or campaign finance reform is somehow going to fix the essential dishonest nature of the game is kind of naive. It's like going to a magic show, expecting to see actual magic.posted by markkraft at 10:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Merely pointing out that politicians are politicians, and politics is politics.

I am totally appalled that anyone would interpret her comments about Obama "not being a Muslim, as far as I know" as just "politics." Gross.posted by dialetheia at 10:15 PM on February 20, 2016 [13 favorites]

two generally well-meaning but disingenuous career polticians / sausage makers, surrounded by arguably less honest, career-minded individuals, trying to get and maintain their own proximity to power... all trying to put a shine on their particular ball of mud.

Basically I'm really tired of hearing people say "I just don't LIKE her, she's such a POLITICIAN," and I'm nervous that Sanders supporters, in their eagerness to propel their candidate to victory in the primaries, are taking a real scorched earth approach towards somebody who would be a decent, if flawed, first female president.posted by prize bull octorok at 10:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

It's incredibly ironic that you'd use that argument to implicitly defend a completely disgusting insinuation she made about her previous Democratic opponent, then.posted by dialetheia at 10:17 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

>That's a good point - the general temperature feels similar but I don't feel like there was nearly >as much anger and resentment from the establishment towards Obama in 2008 as there has >been towards the grassroots this year. It certainly has made me feel much less welcome in the >party. Part of it has to be that the DNC stayed out of it almost entirely in 2008, whereas now it's >run by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was Clinton's campaign chair in 2008.

It's not just the DNC, but yeah, I half expect the Democrats to become the first party in history to actively ask people not to vote for their candidate.

Either way, I just have a bad feeling about how this played out. The 2008 primary might have been ugly, but the party came together pretty quick after it was over. This time around seems like it might do lasting damage.

A really selfish part of me is almost glad Sanders looks like he is going to lose because it means the movements supporting him won't get as much of the blame if things go as bad over the next 8 years as I think they might.

Who am I kidding, though, the establishment will still find a way to blame Sanders supporters for not voting for their candidates or something.posted by eagles123 at 10:17 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I wasn't trying to implicitly defend anything. I've been following Clinton's career since I was a teenager in the 90s and I think the way she's been treated by the media and the public has been, oftentimes, gross and awful. I'd appreciate being taken at my word when I'm trying to explain the context I'm speaking out of.posted by prize bull octorok at 10:24 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

I apologize for losing my patience a bit, but you folks do realize the gravity of the situation, right? What's going to happen if Trump or Cruz or Rubio actually win this election? This internecine bickering is not just disheartening, it's positively irresponsible, given the stakes.

Please, for your fellow citizens and for those of us who aren't American and have no say, despite the fact that we're going to have to deal with the fallout too: vote for the Democrat, talk up the Democrat, whoever it ends up being, whether you like them or their supporters or not, and maybe ease off on the circular firing squad stuff, at least until the election's over. It's the shits, but so it goes.

(That's not to say that reasoned discussion of the pros and cons of the two potential Democratic nominees isn't both good and useful. It is. But.)posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:27 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

So mother-in-laws goldbug previously Ron Paul supporting now Sanders leaning conspiracy theorist boyfriend is now all about how Trump is telling the truth about 9/11, and that "truth" seems to go beyond general Bush useless into jet fuel not melting steel beams territory - is Trump actually making noises like that on the campaign trail?posted by Artw at 10:27 PM on February 20, 2016

Trump is a walking cognitive psychology experiment designed to see how far a candidate can get by appealing purely to people's fears and authoritarian tendencies. So ............. probably.posted by eagles123 at 10:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

two generally well-meaning but disingenuous career polticians / sausage makers

Oh come on, now. Lots of reasons have been put forward for why people shouldn't support Sen. Sanders but disingenuousness has not been one of them. Call him simplistic, call him naive, call him idealistic, call him a left-wing nut, sure; this doesn't pass the laugh test.

Look, we all know that Sec. Clinton will more than likely be the Democratic nominee. As a left-wing, gay, brown social democrat, can somebody please help me get excited about this? Sell me on her! Show me how she's going to at least stand up for my values as opposed to fighting a rearguard action against the idiots in Congress!

I would love to get passionate about Sec. Clinton's candidacy for many reasons, not least of which being that it's about goddamn time there was a woman running shit around here.

But thinking about that moment that she takes the oath of office, which should be this huge, historic, long-overdue moment? It makes me feel like when my husband took me to New York City for Valentine's Day a couple years back, and I'd never been but of course always wanted to go, but it was fucking cold the whole weekend and basically I just remember freezing my ass off in Times Square waiting in line to get cheap off-Broadway tickets.posted by tivalasvegas at 10:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

I don't want to be at great odds with any Clinton supporter. Truly....narcissism of small differences in the greater scheme of things. But still, there are differences betwixt the two. Clinton rubs me the wrong way for many reasons...dynasty, disingenuous, establishment. But at the same time I get her appeal to some people and I don't want to begrudge anyone that appeal. She's a viable woman candidate. For the presidency. That's amazing and about 100 years overdue in any measure. For that reason I will happily happily vote for her if she wins the nomination. But still.....go Bernie. And shame on Hillary for not tacking left from the get go.posted by ian1977 at 10:32 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Art,
I think Trump is saying that the Saudia Arabia is connected to what happened on 9/11. As far as promoting truther theories- I have not seen evidence of that yet.posted by yertledaturtle at 10:32 PM on February 20, 2016

Personally, I'd just characterize stuff like insinuating that Obama is a secret Muslim as pretty "scorched earth" material, myself. Those Islamophobic rumors continue to dog him to this day and it's completely shameful. I still can't figure out what other behavior you were referring to in your comment, but I'll drop it.posted by dialetheia at 10:33 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Well, I think she's being held to a higher standard than the last several dozen+ years of male establishment presidential candidates had to deal with. I didn't like how her 2008 campaign was run either, it was hers to lose and she lost it fair and square, and I was more than happy to vote for Obama. I'm just not on board with pulling out all the stops to paint her as a corrupt crypto-right-wing monster to try and secure a nomination for Sanders. Sanders himself seems to be pretty on board with unity for whoever gets the nomination, I wish more of his supporters were following his lead in that respect.posted by prize bull octorok at 10:43 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

So I just want to make sure I have this straight:
Insinuating that Obama is a secret Muslim: "she's being held to a higher standard"
Simply pointing out the historical fact that she insinuated he is a secret Muslim: "pulling out all the stops to paint her as a corrupt crypto-right-wing monster"posted by dialetheia at 10:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

I agree. She is held to a higher standard. So was Obama. And so was Sanders in some ways. They are all out of the mainstream for some measure of mainstream. I think the dems will continue to be held to a higher standard while apparently the republican standard will seems to know no bottom.posted by ian1977 at 10:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

No, you're tacking my comments to some very specific events in the 2008 campaign and that's not what I was commenting about.posted by prize bull octorok at 10:48 PM on February 20, 2016

The idea that getting rid of Citizens United or campaign finance reform is somehow going to fix the essential dishonest nature of the game is kind of naive. It's like going to a magic show, expecting to see actual magic.

And to respond to this directly: I actually would have agreed with this in the past. I'm not really a silver-bullet kind of guy. If you'd asked me a year or two ago what the biggest issues that need to be addressed in the US are, I probably would have said income inequality, race relations / white supremacy and militarism. It's largely due to Sen. Sanders' harping on the legalized corruption in Washington, and his somewhat unique experience as a long-time politician who because of the idiosyncrasy of Vermont politics has been able to comprehend at an intimate level how sausage gets made in Washington without having to get sucked into the power structure, that I've come to see that this is probably a prerequisite to getting all these other problems addressed.

So it's not so much that we supporters of Sen. Sanders are showing up at a magic show expecting to see real magic: it's Sec. Clinton who's pretending that she can get the work of the people done while she's wearing golden handcuffs. That's where the magical thinking is really at.posted by tivalasvegas at 10:49 PM on February 20, 2016 [15 favorites]

Look, I'll drop it after this, but as someone who has also experienced a great deal of sexist bullshit in my own life, I resent the hell out of anyone using sexism as any kind of cover for the kind of shit she said about Obama in 2008.posted by dialetheia at 10:49 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

The Republican standard is whoever can make Caligula look like a paragon of moderation and compassion.posted by eagles123 at 10:49 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Just flagged eagles123's comment for making me picture Trump's hand covered in whipped cream doing things I won't suffer anyone to envision that hasn't seen Caligula the movie.

Well I should likewise drop it too, but I'm trying to be clear that I wasn't intending to excuse any particular thing she did to Obama in 2008. That's not the conversational thread I was following.posted by prize bull octorok at 10:54 PM on February 20, 2016

If you want a picture of the future imagine short vulgarian whipped cream covered fingers fisting 99% of America. Forever.posted by ian1977 at 10:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Just flagged eagles123's comment for making me picture Trump's hand covered in whipped cream doing things I won't suffer anyone to envision that hasn't seen Caligula the movie.

I haven't seen that movie, but now you've made me curious..................posted by eagles123 at 11:00 PM on February 20, 2016

can somebody please help me get excited about this?

There's already more than enough excitement (and danger). Since the Civil War, the only way the Democrats managed to keep the White House and have one president succeed the other is for the previous president to die somehow.posted by FJT at 11:05 PM on February 20, 2016

You tube search 'Caligula wedding present' if you'd like to see Malcolm McDowall do his best Trump impersonation.

I kid! McDowall as Caligula=10x more classy than a Trump presidency.posted by ian1977 at 11:10 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

What I can't get past is the sense from so many Clinton supporters, and from Clinton herself, that she is somehow entitled to the presidency, that she's earned it or deserves it because nasty sexism or lots of experience or her turn or Republican horrors or whatever. No one is entitled to or deserves the presidency. This is not internecine fighting among Democrats about the better candidate in the primary: the Clintons have treated the Democratic party as their personal property for decades, and some of us really resent it and want the party back. And if Hillary is really so tattered and scarred by treatment of her over the years, she can retire! She's really rich and nearly 70 and has had an amazingly successful professional life (and, as mentioned upthread, the Democrats actually have a pretty deep bench of other leaders).

Mostly, I wish people would stop telling me how I'm supposed to think of this person. I've lived in the Clintons' world, to varying degrees, my entire adult life, and I've watched as decision after decision Bill and then Hillary made have yielded results from horrible to disastrous. I do not trust Hillary Clinton's judgment, and no argument will convince me to ignore what I have witnessed and how it has affected me through my life.

If you disagree and/or cannot accept that, that's fine. But stop telling me I'm wrong. It's offensive and presumptuous, especially when I'm told how I must vote regardless of my evaluation of a particular candidate. And all of this has absolutely nothing to do with support of another candidate--this was my judgment in 2008 (borne out then by how poorly she managed her campaign and the tactics she employed), and it remains my judgment now, especially after her tenure as Secretary of State.

It's OK for someone to have a negative judgment of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, and that judgment really can be rooted simply in evaluation of her past performance and current actions. Reasonable people can disagree, even when looking at the same information. I'm not sure how I'll vote in the general election if she's the candidate, but it's my damn vote. Stop telling me what I'm supposed to do with it.posted by LooseFilter at 11:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [38 favorites]

Since the Civil War, the only way the Democrats managed to keep the White House and have one president succeed the other is for the previous president to die somehow.

Respectfully, this is not completely accurate.
Harry Truman was a Democratic President that followed Franklin Roosevelt.

Technically, yes; Roosevelt died and then Truman took office but then he was was also re-elected.

A Democrat was in the White House from 1933 to 1953.
20 years!posted by yertledaturtle at 11:17 PM on February 20, 2016

I don't mean excited about the general situation, I mean excited about Hillary Clinton. And actually not me in particular (I live in a deep blue state and my vote for President is about as important as a piece of one-ply toilet paper) but people whose vote might actually matter but who probably won't vote unless they're actually excited about the person they're coming out for.

Also, if Hillary Clinton isn't elected it won't be because of a no-democrat-is-elected-in-post-civil-war-America-immediately-after-a-Democratic-president-unless-that-president-died-in-office rule because, well, that's not a rule, it's just an observation. I might as well argue that no Latinos, women, Vermonters or reality-TV-show real estate moguls have ever been elected President, so Ben Carson is obviously going to move into the White House next year.posted by tivalasvegas at 11:19 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

>That's a good point - the general temperature feels similar but I don't feel like there was nearly >as much anger and resentment from the establishment towards Obama in 2008 as there has >been towards the grassroots this year.

To me its more reminiscent of the post-2000 bad feeling between Nader voters and mainstream Democrats. What's raising the temperature is that it's very difficult to make the case for idealism without seeming like you are personally attacking more pragmatic voters - who in turn feel that they are being reasonable and realistic but who appear implicitly to be asserting that more idealistic voters are stupid or deluded. Tactical considerations suddenly turn into something much more visceral and divisive. And, of course, both the "protest/conscience vote" which throws the election to the other team and the political compromise which sells short those in need are both frightening and frighteningly familiar possibilities.

There was a solid dose of Messianic politics following Obama around during the 2008 primaries, but most intelligent people who bothered to pay attention understood that he and Clinton were both mainstream Democratic centrists (aside from the Iraq vote, I don't remember any specific elements of their voting record being raised). Sanders is explicitly making a stand against pragmatic politics of the sort that both Obama and Clinton have spent their careers practicing. Which brings that chasm between the pragmatists and the idealists to the fore in a way I don't think it was in 2008.

It certainly has made me feel much less welcome in the party

Can't say the Sanders folks have been particularly friendly and welcoming to anyone who disagrees with them, including here on Metafilter. It's a polarizing race, and I suspect its going to leave lingering aftereffects within the party no matter who wins the nomination and the general - and if we do lose the general, the mutual recriminations are going to be far nastier than Nader '00 ever were.posted by AdamCSnider at 11:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

Quite honestly, if this race will teach Democrats to have passion and fire, the same zeal that Republicans have used to bicker endlessly about the purest and most potent candidate, then all of this bad-blood spilling not be for naught.

But after a nominee is chosen, Democrats will also have to also learn discipline and steel, the same will that Republicans have used to single-mindedly and single-heartedly vote for whomever their candidate is, regardless of the bad blood that had been spilled mere months before the nomination.posted by Apocryphon at 11:32 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

but people whose vote might actually matter but who probably won't vote unless they're actually excited about the person they're coming out for.

That's a turnout problem, and one felt acutely in non-presidential years and perhaps even in future elections too (can you imagine people getting super excited about O'Malley?). I don't know if it's possible we can rely on exciting candidates every election.posted by FJT at 11:32 PM on February 20, 2016

About that Sanders supporters chanting "English only" allegation:

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-english-only-huerta/

I guess the Clinton people are going to go after fucking Susan Sarandon now. It's shit like this that fucking disgusts me. Fine, support Clinton. I completely understand that. I'll never understand or support this shit. Shit like this helps nobody. It doesn't just hurt Democrats; it hurts the fucking country. It's even gonna come back and bite Clinton in the ass eventually because what goes around comes around.

Anything to win the news cycle, though. Win the battle, lose the war. And I'm not talking about the war against Sanders.posted by eagles123 at 11:43 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

but people whose vote might actually matter but who probably won't vote unless they're actually excited about the person they're coming out for.

I've never been excited about a candidate in any meaningful sense of the word, and I've voted in every election since I came of age. I've always felt that making politics a part of life, like paying taxes and buying groceries, is a far healthier way of handling things. And I wonder how many people who are "excited" about their presidential candidate are equally excited about the congressional, state and local races without which capturing the White House is just a Supreme Court justice seat and four years of un-exciting rearguard action.

I've banged the drum hard enough in other threads so I'm not going to go on at length about it here, but - Clinton or Sanders, neither of them are going to be able to play a very effective game - offense or defense - without some decent coattails. Frankly, that looms far larger to me than which of them actually gets the nomination at this stage.posted by AdamCSnider at 11:47 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

"Exciting" doesn't have to mean, like, sexy (an adjective that I doubt has ever been applied to Sen. Sanders in a political context). But it does mean that a candidate should be able to articulate to voters how taking time out of their day will concretely benefit them. Which in the case of many infrequent voters may mean waiting in line, figuring out how to squeeze voting in between work, getting kids to/from school, etc.

I'd love to see Election Day be a national holiday, or even to have a legal requirement that eligible voters must at least go to their polling place, combined with more automated voter registration and so on. In the meantime -- yeah, especially for Democrats a huge part of being a good Presidential candidate does mean energizing the base and turning out marginal voters.posted by tivalasvegas at 11:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Besides, if you actually watch the video, they did have a volunteer translator from the Sanders side - the moderator made the decision not to let either side translate for some reason. It's a Democratic party caucus fuckup, not either campaign's fault.posted by dialetheia at 11:56 PM on February 20, 2016 [17 favorites]

Yeah, why is it the responsibility of the Sanders campaign to provide a translator? I would think the Clinton people would have equally valid objections.posted by eagles123 at 11:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Can't say the Sanders folks have been particularly friendly and welcoming to anyone who disagrees with them, including here on Metafilter.

As a Sanders supporter, I've felt the same way. This has been a really polarizing race, and it's getting very tiring. It's been endlessly frustrating the way people have talked at each other about this.

The one thing that really sticks with me is the sentiment that one could only support Sanders if they didn't live in "the real world," or that they were hopelessly naive, or caught up in a Tea-party-like fervor. I haven't held back about my criticisms of Clinton, but I don't think someone needs to be unreasonable or naive to support her. I've really tried to be fair about the disagreements people have had here, and I've tried to be clear that I don't think Clinton is a bad person. But it's like we end up talking about supporters as often as the candidates' issues themselves.posted by teponaztli at 12:05 AM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

can you imagine people getting super excited about O'Malley?

At this point, I'd be excited because his supporters weren't as scary as Hillary's and Bernie's.posted by Apocryphon at 12:12 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Yeah, the polarization makes me feel like the voters who usually don't pay much attention to the election until the general are gonna be in for a surprise when they stumble upon the Tarantino-esque bloodbath full of dead Clinton and Sanders supporters at each other's throats.posted by FJT at 12:24 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Is it this polarized on the Republican side?posted by FJT at 12:27 AM on February 21, 2016

I apologize for losing my patience a bit, but you folks do realize the gravity of the situation, right? What's going to happen if Trump or Cruz or Rubio actually win this election? This internecine bickering is not just disheartening, it's positively irresponsible, given the stakes.

I lived through the end of the cold war, I watched Threads when I was 12 and the last 18 months on both sides of the Atlantic have made me seriously worry that we're heading for dystopia.

And yet, it is also the closest we have come to having actual socialist leaders on both sides of the pond in half a century!

The morning afterwards (well, here in England, anyway) and the bookmaker odds have settled somewhat.

On the Republican side, a two horse race, and not much difference between the slight favorite Trump (10/11) and Rubio (13/10). The rest are all long shots.

On the Democrat side, Clinton remains solid favorite (1/5) with Sanders at roughly 4/1. However, most of the bookmakers are offering not-short-but-not-complete-outsider odds on Biden at roughly 20/1.posted by Wordshore at 12:48 AM on February 21, 2016

Is it this polarized on the Republican side?

Yes and then some, I think. This is a list of the dirty tricks Ted Cruz pulled this week alone, the week after Trump went nuclear on the Republican party in the debate (accusing Bush of lying to get us into Iraq and literally telling Jeb his mom should be on the stage instead of Jeb if she's so great) then called Cruz a "pussy" at one of his rallies. I've seen some extremely nasty rumor campaigns about Marco Rubio's personal life this week, too.

There might not be as much social media squabbling because they've already self-sorted into little pockets and forums, and there aren't as many general-interest conservative spaces anymore like there are general-interest liberal spaces. Generally, there are establishment spaces, where people are trying desperately to convince themselves that Rubio can really pull it off and trying to figure out how they can knock out Cruz to beat Trump; there are movement conservative spaces, where they complain about Trump not supporting eminent domain and plot how to smear Rubio to get Cruz in position to beat Trump; and there are identity conservative spaces, where people just say the most racist shit imaginable, make fun of Jeb Bush, and make terrible insipid memes to support Trump.

The three wings don't talk to each other in public as much, is all. There has been an uneasy alliance between the movement types supporting Cruz and the establishment types supporting Rubio because they have a common enemy in Trump, but now that it's basically a three-way race, it will probably get much uglier soon (as indicated by Cruz's dirty politicking against Rubio this week). People are counting Cruz out because he didn't do as well with evangelicals as he should have, but he's still polling better than Rubio in most states, and I doubt Cruz would ever drop out for the good of the party - Cruz wouldn't even tie his own shoes for the good of the party - so Rubio will continue to split the anti-Trump support with Cruz unless one of them is forced out somehow. If Ted Cruz had ever cooperated with another human being before in his life, I'd have more hope about them uniting to knock Trump out somehow, but I don't see it happening - Cruz is physically incapable of being cooperative by almost all accounts.

Their coalition is basically a smoking ruin. Even evangelicals are defecting for Trump and there seems to be nothing the party leaders can do to keep things together. They probably still hate Democrats enough to turn out most of the base, don't get me wrong, but the grassroots is in complete open rebellion against the establishment/money people over there, too - more so even than on the Democratic side.

The movement & establishment conservatives still can't seem to understand why the hell the identity conservatives are so in love with Trump and they've been even more condescending and openly hostile about it than the Democratic establishment has (with good reason, in a lot of cases) - e.g. that "Against Trump" issue that National Review put out that backfired so thoroughly on them. Meanwhile, both Trump and Cruz talk about Republican leadership as if they are giving the farm away to Obama and driving god-fearing conservatives to certain damnation (which is the base dynamic that's driven their historic obstructionism). He's been doing it with ads and mailers already, but I expect Cruz to ramp up that "Rubio = ESTABLISHMENT!!!" stuff in the media very soon.

The rhetoric among supporters is orders of magnitude more overheated than on the Democratic side, too - think gross Godwin's law stuff about John Boehner personally marching brave conservatives off to their deaths while Obama sits by and laughs. That's the level of distrust and contempt they have for the Republican establishment at this point. That dynamic is, of course, their own damn fault, but it's sinking any candidate with even the barest minimum history of, you know, actually trying to govern. If you think anything you've seen on the Democratic side is gross, don't look up the word "cuckservative."

Republicans really shouldn't be surprised by Trump's success, though. Republicans operate according to Worthington's Law ("more money = better than"), which makes them susceptible to any billionaire who wants to run - see also Carson and Fiorina. Trump is the logical extension and reductio ad absurdum of the Republican ideal, as Sam Seder nailed perfectly way back in June. "They have no way of dismissing him because he is exactly what their vision for America is: a nativist billionaire who simplifies everything down to their lowest common denominator and talks tough. I mean, what else has been the Republican project?"posted by dialetheia at 1:15 AM on February 21, 2016 [32 favorites]

What's the difference between movement conservatism and the GOP establishment? And where does the Tea Party fall into? Its rank and file is most certainly identity conservatism, many of whom are now with Trump, so Rubio and Cruz both being TP alum but are in separate tendencies makes it all the more puzzling- and interesting.posted by Apocryphon at 1:25 AM on February 21, 2016

Huh - I guess all that makes me feel better about what is going on with the Democrats ............. except for the little detail about Republicans having a lock on the House and controlling many state governments.

Still really interesting, though.posted by eagles123 at 1:35 AM on February 21, 2016

Movement conservatives are guys who Really Really Care about conservative orthodox ideology, like opposing eminent domain (I think I left a "not" out of my sentence above!). They're the "intellectual" wing of the party, insofar as you can describe any group that includes Jonah Goldberg as "intellectual" (I mean, William F. Buckley they're not). The establishment guys don't care nearly as much as they claim to about the ideological stuff - they care about protecting their money and power and not much else, when it really comes down to it. There's probably still a decent amount of overlap between those two groups, but the ideological heart of the party has been increasingly aligned with the Tea Party since the last Bush administration.

The Tea Party seemed to be a (temporary?) alliance of movement and identity types against the establishment, where Ted Cruz represents the movement types and Sarah Palin represents the identity types (e.g. she probably barely even knows what eminent domain means). Her endorsement of Trump was a great example of how Trump has split apart that Tea Party alliance. It was a huge betrayal to Cruz, who she'd supported before because they were allies against the establishment in the Tea Party - but when Trump entered the race, it became crystal clear that she valued the identity stuff much more than the ideology, so she chose Trump over Cruz. The same has been true for many conservatives. I think a lot of the movement people are shocked that the ideological support for the party is truly so narrow while the identity support is so broad and deep (another thing that really shouldn't surprise them).

Trump has effectively split the Tea Party apart into ideological and identity wings, and it turns out the identity wing is much stronger so far. So now the movement guys are trying to ally with the establishment again to knock Trump out. Who knows which of those alliances will last, but it's been fascinating to watch.posted by dialetheia at 1:40 AM on February 21, 2016 [22 favorites]

This is all very fascinating because back in the simple days of Bush we could simply think of conservatism as the three-issues triad of fiscal (tax-cutting, balanced budgeting- though haha given Bush's wars, government shrinking, deregulation), social (evangelicalism, dispensationalism, anti-abortions-and-gayism), and international (neoconservatism, but any sort of hawkery would do).

I can't quite make heads or tails of the Wiki definition of movement conservatism (for starters, what's a "traditionalist", given the context), but it seems to be umbrella factions that's composed of all of the issues I listed above. So what issues do the establishment and identity conservatives care about? And are these three groups the only components of the GOP?posted by Apocryphon at 1:40 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Thanks, dialetheia, this is very interesting.
It looks like a trend across the Western countries - the UK/EU thing is more about identity than anything else, and all across Europe traditional conservatives are losing to nationalistic and anti-immigrant parties.
I suppose we'll all have to go to Canada in the end, they seem to have gotten over it.posted by mumimor at 1:47 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

This article helps illustrate what I'm talking about - Inside the secret meeting where conservative leaders pledged allegiance to Ted Cruz. Many of those leaders are the evangelical movement people, whose dedication to conservatism is ideological and premised on anti-abortion, anti-gay, "pro-family" stuff. They ended up settling on Cruz after much debate, but there was a pro-Rubio contingent arguing for an alliance with the establishment.

However, despite a lot of that muscle lining up behind Cruz and despite Trump's relative wishy-washiness on choice and Planned Parenthood, a plurality of evangelicals went to Trump today in SC. Those are folks who likely aren't driven toward conservativism by the Christian ideology; they're people who identify as conservatives because they primarily feel persecuted by elites and minorities and identify themselves in opposition as "Real Americans."posted by dialetheia at 2:29 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Re: the Latino vote split in Nevada, it sounds like the entrance polls support Sanders' campaign's claim that they won the Latino vote by 53%-45%, but the Clinton campaign is trying to cast doubt on those results. The person responsible for the polling pushed back on the Clinton campaign spin about geographic distribution of delegates and Latinos while noting that the margin of error could mean it was closer to a tie. Either way, it sounds like her "Latino firewall" wasn't nearly what her campaign thought it would be thanks to Sanders' inroads among young Latino voters:

"Lenski added that Sanders’ overall lead was driven by a huge advantage among younger Hispanic voters.

“Sanders completely dominated among Hispanics [under age 30], but Clinton won every Hispanic age group 30 and older,” Lenski wrote. “Hispanics as a whole are younger than non-Hispanics, so Sanders’ strength among [younger] Hispanics counts for more because of the younger skew among Hispanics.”

Moreover, Lenski said, those younger Hispanics — especially college students — may not live in the majority-Latino precincts where the Clinton campaign is touting its delegate haul as evidence of her performance among Hispanics statewide."posted by dialetheia at 3:43 AM on February 21, 2016

I'm dead curious to see how Melania Trump plays with Trump supporters as the candidate families start getting more exposure.

I read an interview with her in People a few weeks back while killing time in the grocery line. Those two have a very 50s marriage- he makes all the money and decisions, I do all the child-rearing and home-decorating. To me it sounded bloodless and weird, but his elderly supporters probably love it.posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:11 AM on February 21, 2016

I'll be interested to see what effect, if any, this has on his race. He won his last election by 221 votes, and I think high turnout and voter enthusiasm are absolutely necessary to widen that margin this November. I'm also interested to see what sort of support (or resistance) Salazar gets from the state Democratic establishment, given Governor Hickenlooper's dismissal of progressives as "aggressive" in making his case for Clinton.posted by audi alteram partem at 5:49 AM on February 21, 2016

[Quick reminder: please don't edit comments for more than typos; if you want to update, make a new comment. Thanks.]posted by taz at 6:01 AM on February 21, 2016

As a left-wing, gay, brown social democrat, can somebody please help me get excited about this? Sell me on her! Show me how she's going to at least stand up for my values as opposed to fighting a rearguard action against the idiots in Congress!

Well, after many years of being opposed to it and some heartfelt triangulation, now that gay marriage is legal, she is boldly no longer opposed to it. I mean, really, you can't beat those liberal credentials.posted by entropicamericana at 6:02 AM on February 21, 2016 [11 favorites]

Sanders has policy positions that do appeal to many Latino voters that do demographically skew younger than the average. Health care and college are 2 massive concerns among just about every younger cohort.

Clinton who is pretty much the odds on favorite at this point needs to figure out what is driving Sanders popularity among millenials and add policy planks that encompass some of those policy demands.posted by vuron at 6:15 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Is there a way for Hillary to do that without more accusations of being disingenuous? Maybe if she waited until after she's secured the victory and framed it (say, free college) as an explicit outreach to Sanders supporters - "I know this is important to you and your voting bloc is important to me, so I've figured out a way to make this work with my economic plan"?posted by sallybrown at 6:18 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

After a lovely, apolitical evening, I'm stunned to wake up to this news about Delores Huerta. Steinem and Albright were hurtful and disappointing, but I've had the honor and privilege to have worked with Delores Huerta so this is personally devastating.

For someone who has been the victim of so much sexism it's gross that the first people Hillary and her supporters threw under the bus were young women. After seeing the results in SC I'm starting to have serious concerns about whether or not she can beat Trump so I have no idea why the presumptive nominee keeps trying to alienate a significant portion of the base.

On preview, sallybrown, here's the problem as I see it. When Hillary confronted Bernie abiut the Bernie Bros he unequivocally disavowed them. He called them disgusting, and said he didn't want anything to do with them because that's not what his campaign was about. When Albright said women like me were going to hell, and when Steinem said I was just boy-crazy, Hillary laughed it off and said I was overly-sensitive. Bernie did exactly what we ask men to do: he didn't question the allegations, he stood up for the women who weren't even voting for him. Hillary, on the other hand, doubled down and now appears to have tripled down. It's ironic that the "one true feminist" candidate has done more to divide women in this country than anything I can think of in a long time.

At this point I'd respect her a lot more if she just came out and said I needed to vote for her so Trump won't be president. Another suggestion: stop talking about how awful Sanders supporters are and start talking about the issues.posted by Room 641-A at 6:31 AM on February 21, 2016 [36 favorites]

A lot of people are scared. Really scared. People make poor decisions and act rashly out of fear, and fear also influences how we interpret things (such as perhaps hearing the words "English only," which all sides acknowledge was said, and making assumptions about who was saying that, how many of them were, and why). People who are into the horse race nature of politics also generally act like complete jerks about their candidates, imo. (For example, rereading some parts of this thread in the light of day...lots of spiky attitude about a lot of things.)

Things are going to get a lot worse from both sides before they get better. Especially because of the constant focus in the news lately on breaking down Democratic voting by ethnicity and race, when it seems clear as day that age is more of a driving factor.posted by sallybrown at 6:41 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Looks like it's going to get worse on the national level before it gets better, too. Too bad there's nowhere on the planet to run from the effects of the nightmare policies either frontrunner is going to enact.posted by entropicamericana at 6:49 AM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

I totally agree about age being an issue. It's been clear for a long time that this primary was mainly breaking down along age lines; we saw it in NH when the only group the broke for Hillary was over 60, and then again as endorsements started coming out of the African-American community ahead of SC*. And yet, so much of the legitimate criticism of Clinton is dismissed as sexist or personal, over and over again. So why is the campaign perpetuating this? That's the question I have been asking here for weeks. I haven't seen any evidence that Clinton wants to bring along Bernie supporters.

*It's not clear to me if that's the case with Latin@s since Nevada also had a heavy union component.posted by Room 641-A at 6:54 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Room 641-A, if Clinton and Trump are the candidates, "Vote for me because I'm not Donald Trump" is going to be her best option as a campaign slogan, I think. There are too many people who don't like her.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:58 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump Trump
Dump the Trump
Show Trump Your Rumpposted by sallybrown at 7:00 AM on February 21, 2016

Regarding the Huerta issue:

Yes a neutral translator should've been present as a way of making Latino voters feel welcome
Huerta took on that translator role and was perceived to be biased (although I do think it's possible to translate fairly and be a supporter of a specific candidate) by Bernie supporters.
Rather than use two translators (or a neutral translator) the official chose to go with english only for the caucus thereby alienating some people including Huerta.

I don't think that anyone particularly comes off looking good in this issue.posted by vuron at 7:13 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

For people who still believe in Bernie, now is probably the time for another donation. He's burning through cash it as he goes, when it runs out the campaign will be done.

Sen. Bernie Sanders drastically ramped up his campaign's spending in January as the Democratic primary contest engaged, racing through nearly $35 million as he worked to try to match the infrastructure that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton built over the course of last year.

As a result, even though he outraised her for the first time, Clinton expanded her cash lead by the end of the month. After spending $21.2 million in January, Clinton ended the month with nearly $33 million in the bank. Sanders had almost $14.7 million.

A huge share of Sanders's spending in January — $14 million — went into television ads, outpacing the $10 million that Clinton put into advertising. That helped him get more commercials on the air in Nevada in the run-up to Saturday's caucuses, which Clinton won.posted by Drinky Die at 7:20 AM on February 21, 2016

Clinton who is pretty much the odds on favorite at this point needs to figure out what is driving Sanders popularity among millenials and add policy planks that encompass some of those policy demands.

Not really possible due to her being so deeply entrenched as the establishment candidate, And it's a hostile establishment that sees millenials as excess biomass and certainly isn't going to offer them anything like decent healthcare or education without crushing debtposted by Artw at 7:20 AM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]

Why would Rubio come out and deny it, though? Just say "We haven't heard anything beyond the news report but would be gratified for anyone's endorsement" or some such nonsense.

Unless Rubio's camp leaked the endorsement and Romney pushed back very hard...posted by sallybrown at 7:24 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

3. Republican primary voters are more racist than we had thought.

Eh, more like, "than we politely pretended."

Backlash against immigration and immigrants sets in more quickly, when middle class wages are stagnant, than we had thought. And true cosmopolitans are hard to find.

The backlash has been there all along. Trump just stoked the fire.

The Black Swan view of the world makes even more sense. We wrongly think things that are different are impossible.

Big time yes. The voters can do anything they want if they start rejecting the message from the establishment that the only thing they can do is live in the establishment's world.posted by Drinky Die at 7:30 AM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

My first thought when the rumors started to fly was that a Romney endorsement would hurt Rubio more than it could possibly help him. With Bush gone he's already the establishment and "moderate" wings' last best hope. What he needs now is to pull in Cruz and Trump voters, and they hate that guy and his 2012 campaign.posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:35 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Given that Trump is winning, which other views should we update?

Hmm. Can't say I'm one of the people surprised by Trump's success, but let's look at that..

1. Social media are more powerful than we had thought, and more powerful in politics in particular.

Maybe? This guy has been on television 24/7 since he announced though, traditional media serves him far better than everyone else. What I'd say is notable about him and social media is he'll just straight up say the kind of shit you'd see in Facebook posts or forwarded email without any filter, no need for any dogwhistles.

2. Republican voters are less conservative, less “Tea Party,” and less libertarian than many people had thought. And the “periphery Republicans” are stronger and more numerous and more easily excited than we had thought.

Can't say I see anything to this theory. Less religious maybe? Especially if that's offset by racism? But conservative values have always seemed like a front for hate to me, and libertarians just whiney jerk tax dodgers. Trump is pretty in line with all of them.

3. Republican primary voters are more racist than we had thought.

Can't say this is suprising AT ALL. Maybe how much they'll openly embrace it is.

4. Backlash against immigration and immigrants sets in more quickly, when middle class wages are stagnant, than we had thought. And true cosmopolitans are hard to find.

The fallout from the 2008 financial crisis and all the crappy "austerity" measures that have cropped up in its wake are a perfect breeding ground for fascism worldwide. Not a surprise, but certainly true.

5. The value of commanding and dominating media attention, in a year with no clear front-runner Republican candidate, is higher than we had thought.

Absolutely true. It'll be interesting if he'll be able to steamroller his democratic opponent with the media so easily, my money is on yes.

6. Trump is more skillful at trolling and pulling levers of public opinion than we had thought.

Being a shitty TV show host might be more of a skill than we thought. Perhaps this is the future of democracy.

7. Democracy is less stable than we had thought.

See above re:austerity. It makes fascism an easy sell. We are all super-fucked now, because nothing he does whilst in power, even if it is disastrous, is going to make it less of an easy sell.

8. New Yorkers are more nationally marketable than we had thought.

Yeah, I guess republicans don't actually care that much about good old boys if you give them an actual nazi.posted by Artw at 7:45 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Romney probably won't endorse until it's certain because he still remains a viable compromise candidate if a brokered convention is likely. If Rubiobot can't start doing better then it's unclear if the party elite will coalesce behind him.posted by vuron at 7:49 AM on February 21, 2016

Given that Trump is winning, which other views should we update?

It's good to keep in mind that Trump only won 32% of the vote in South Carolina. 68% of Republican voters voted against him and while obviously many of those voters might have Trump as their second choice, there's still a sizable opposition to him. With Bush out and if Kasich and Carson drop out, that frees up almost 25% of the vote that will probably lend more support for Rubio or Cruz.posted by octothorpe at 7:57 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Those that didn't vote for Trump voted for Cruz, and Rubio is a joke candidate. I mean, I guess they could all switch to him if the other two stop throwing them raw, bloody meat and they feel like throwing the election instead, but it doesn't seem likely.posted by Artw at 8:01 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wow this conversation is moving fast. I just wanted to address:Sanders is explicitly making a stand against pragmatic politics of the sort that both Obama and Clinton have spent their careers practicing.

I'd agree if this used the term triangulation instead of pragmatic. The reality and evidence is that Bernie has used his political voice to very much move and shape conversation and policy. Both as an executive (mayor) and legislator. His goals are real things in the world for real people, not some abstract or academic ideals. That's why some of his early allies see him as a sell out to the forces he claims to fight against.

To paraphrase a candidate from the other side. He knows what he is doing.

I return to my refrain of being very disappointed that Hillary has not used this moment to recognize and embrace the young progressive movement in the party but rather to scold it about how getting what you want requires hard work and holding your nose. I know that's what she has experienced in life - in spades. But this was a chance to dream and move towards a better future. I think that's being missed.posted by meinvt at 8:06 AM on February 21, 2016 [16 favorites]

meinvt, I think that's a feature of Hillary wanting to be president, and not caring so much about the presidency or the future of the country.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Kemp eschewed pragmatism for vision and leadership. Then he went on the offense to change political dynamics. Sometimes, instead of compromising, you just have to go for the big play.

Lately, Hillary Clinton and her supporters have been criticizing Bernie Sanders’s proposals not so much because they are wrongheaded, but because they are too utopian to pass Congress. I find this to be a curious line of attack because, in effect, Clinton is playing by Republican rules—saying that Democrats should only propose things that could be enacted by a Republican Congress.

Economists would call this an example of static analysis, assuming that circumstances will not change or that leadership is incapable of altering political possibilities. If Republicans had held this same point of view, Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut never would have been enacted and, very likely, they would never have gained control of Congress. The 1981 tax cut fundamentally altered political dynamics.

I'm personally growing sick of this 'pragmatism' argument from Clinton and Co., and it boggles my mind that so many of her supporters have picked it up and run with it. Has this refrain - one of 'daring' to only imagine or talk about the possible - ever been so front and center before?

I guess someone should go back in time and tell MLK to keep his dream under wraps and stick to talking only about the pragmatic.posted by syzygy at 8:14 AM on February 21, 2016 [23 favorites]

I do think there is room for a political revolution but I don't really think it's possible to lead that revolution from the office of the President. Think of it this way, the current power dynamics in Republiclandia are driven by decades of work at the local and state level which made it possible to basically give the Republicans a almost permanent structural majority in the House (due to gerrymandering and the nature of incumbency). It has made the Republican party incredibly strong although it's also made it next to ungovernable because ideological purity is viewed as more important than pragmatism. If the Republicans were actually trying to get anything done it would be problematic but honestly status quo suits conservatives just fine.

In contrast the Democrats have been seen as the big tent which allows for much more ideological differences because at the end of the day there is a great deal of agreement over the desired ends but a lot of of disagreement over the means to achieve those ends.

Personally I'm not comfortable with the idea that Democrats should mandate ideological purity tests either way.posted by vuron at 8:28 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

But this was a chance to dream and move towards a better future. I think that's being missed.

I don't think they really have a sense of there being a future. There's just PRESIDENT CLINTON as an end goal and nothing after that matters.posted by Artw at 8:31 AM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

"It can't be just about what we're going to give you" That can't be an actual quote. This is something a republican must have said to smear progressives right before we take back our party from the neocons in tie-dye and bellbottoms.

*looks up the content of Hillary's Nevada victory speech* Woah, she really did say those words. I'm actually honestly hurt. Secretary Clinton, I know you will never read this, but I just want you to know I'm saddened by your gross mischaracterization. Do you honestly believe that the future of the Democratic party, millions of young people of all colors and creeds, just want handouts from the government?

I can't believe how out of touch she is. Clearly there are two Democratic parties, one filled with a 'pragmatic' old guard, haunted by Walter Mondale, afraid of anything but incrementalism, and a vibrant young coalition hungry to stamp out injustice and inequality in all of its modern manifestations.

'It can't be just about what we're going to give to you'? Really now? Okay, I'll vote on election day come what may, but I won't be surprised if half of our party feels totally alienated and disenfranchised. I'll do the minimum here, and even that will be a struggle. I really hope the minimum is sufficient. If after dragging all of us through the mud it is still not enough...then...well I guess I'll just suck it up and soldier through a long dark fascist winter. If such dire circumstances come to pass, I will take great comfort in seeds sown and the thought of so many healthy noble seedlings pressing up against the ice, desperate for a spring which will soon come.posted by getting_back_on_track at 8:33 AM on February 21, 2016 [26 favorites]

Her argument against anything progressive is that it would take effort and time to change things, and that's clearly possible because PRESIDENT CLINTON is the end and there is nothing beyond that. It's weirdly nihilist.posted by Artw at 8:39 AM on February 21, 2016 [8 favorites]

I don't think elect President Clinton is by any means the end goal.

I think the current thinking among some liberals are as follow:

1) Lock in at least 4 years more of a Democrat President so that ACA continues to be safe.
2) Confirm a Scalia replacement if Obama can't get it done.
3) Nominate and confirm a RBG replacement if necessary.
4) Use the administrative power of the executive office to continue policies pursued by Obama
5) Continue to highlight Republican obstructionism in a hope that the few remaining rational members of that caucus will bring the nutcases to heel.
6) Inspire a generation of young girls and women by showing that yes a Woman can be President.

I understand that from a progressive viewpoint what I just listed is insufficient but it's complete unclear how the current progressive agenda will even be considered by Congress much less enacted and while the Bully Pulpit has power it's remarkably limited in it's ability to get Republican congress critters to do anything as evidenced by the continual failure of Obama's attempt to push some sort of meaningful dialogue about gun violence to the forefront.posted by vuron at 8:46 AM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

vuron, as a Sanders supporter, I think many of us are willing to gamble with a 4 year GOP presidency that gives us a huge progressive/liberal spring point in 2020. Highly preferable to 4 or 8 years of Clinton, IMHO.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:49 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

vuron, as a Sanders supporter, I think many of us are willing to gamble with a 4 year GOP presidency that gives us a huge progressive/liberal spring point in 2020. Highly preferable to 4 or 8 years of Clinton, IMHO.

Being willing to make that bet means being willing to gamble with other peoples' lives, families, jobs, and money. People of color, Muslim people, kids who President Trump would send to war, people with insecure employment, who could lose jobs if the economy crashes again, etc. Four years is a hell of a long time for people lacking the insulation of privilege.posted by sallybrown at 8:55 AM on February 21, 2016 [27 favorites]

As someone who has lots of friends that could lose out significantly if Republicans get the Presidency in 2016 and are able to lock in a young Scalia replacement and replace RBG with a conservative and push through a gutting of ACA the idea of a short term loss for long term gain is exceedingly problematic.

I understand that people want to achieve big goals like single payer healthcare and universal higher education and I think those are laudable goals but I also like to think that sometimes the political landscape forces the liberals to play defensive for a while. I suspect that 2016-2020 is going to be a continuation of the last 4 years in which Democrats have had to play defensive vs Republican attempts to rollback progressive change.posted by vuron at 8:58 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm not convinced Trump is going to get anywhere near the White House, but as a queer person, I am well aware of the risks. I'm not saying people should vote against Clinton if they want her to be president. I'm saying, as many people have said in this thread, that I'm going to use my own vote how I see fit to.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:59 AM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

vuron, as a Sanders supporter, I think many of us are willing to gamble with a 4 year GOP presidency that gives us a huge progressive/liberal spring point in 2020. Highly preferable to 4 or 8 years of Clinton, IMHO.

As a Sanders supporter, that argument is insane, self-defeating and nihilistic. I was hugely critical of Clinton earlier in this thread, but I will absolutely vote for her and loudly do everything I know how to encourage other people I know to do the same. In the general. I hope to all things sacred that that will be enough to overcome her huge liabilities, and that if elected, she can manage to avoid her own natural tendencies and run a scandal free administration long enough for demographics to work their magic and grow the Democratic coalition so that the next national figure really is a progressive and not a Clintonite.

Flirting with 4 years of Trump, who let's say this again for the benefit of Bernie Bros, is almost literally Hitler, is out of the question.posted by T.D. Strange at 9:07 AM on February 21, 2016 [38 favorites]

tivalasvegas: Look, we all know that Sec. Clinton will more than likely be the Democratic nominee. As a left-wing, gay, brown social democrat, can somebody please help me get excited about this? Sell me on her! Show me how she's going to at least stand up for my values as opposed to fighting a rearguard action against the idiots in Congress!

But echoing some people above, if HRC is the nominee I will vote for her and make damn sure to vote D in downticket races.posted by dhens at 9:18 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Plus it basically makes you one of those Annoying Nader voters. You're seriously looking at that and thinking "Yes! That is the hill for me! I shall stand in the wreckage of 2020 America and yell at clouds whenever anyone implies my choices led to that!".posted by Artw at 9:19 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

I guess I don't understand why someone aligned with Bernie's goals but who finds Hillary too repellant to vote for, and feels the need to cast a vote, would ever vote GOP instead of a third party candidate like Jill Stein (who is much closer to Sanders than anyone in the GOP)?posted by sallybrown at 9:22 AM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

I'd say voter apathy is the biggest risk with Clinton.posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]

Flirting with 4 years of Trump, who let's say this again for the benefit of Bernie Bros, is almost literally Hitler, is out of the question.

I don't think this Trump = Hitler analogy is very helpful, or true for that matter.

First of all, Hitler had convictions and followed, if not created, a twisted and perverted ideology. It's all laid out in his book "Mein Kampf", written in 1923. And as twisted and perverted this ideology was, Hitler was pretty consistent about it. In any case, I don't think he's ever been accused of being a flip-flopper on social (or any other) matters.

Trump, on the other hand, makes it up as he goes along. There are no solid convictions worth mentioning. The book he is known for ("The art of the deal") is not about any personal (moral) convictions, but about a methodology. It's about HOW to reach a certain goal, and not WHAT that goal should be.

If anything, I think Trump is much closer to Berlusconi: the grandiosity, the superficial charm, the exaggerated self-importance, the pathological lying, the constant denigration of competitors, the manipulativeness, the complete absence of a moral core, the refusal to ever apologize for anything, the irresponsibility, etc.posted by sour cream at 9:28 AM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]

People make poor decisions and act rashly out of fear, and fear also influences how we interpret things (such as perhaps hearing the words "English only," which all sides acknowledge was said, and making assumptions about who was saying that, how many of them were, and why).

I guess you're more charitable than me, because I have a hard time understanding how someone could hear the amplified voice of the moderator standing several feet away on stage use a phrase once in the context of a sentence and honestly interpret that as a group of people in the crowd, coincidentally all supporting the candidate you oppose, chanting that phrase (i.e., loudly and more than once).

It sounds like Huerta was upset about what she felt to be disrespectful treatment by the caucusgoers, and that's certainly unfortunate. But then she started a rumor that something happened that didn't happen and it's spread like wildfire and may be hurting her opponent's rising support in minority communities, which the candidate she supports desperately needs to hold on to in order to win the nomination. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I disagree with you about which way Occam's razor cuts this time.posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:28 AM on February 21, 2016 [17 favorites]

would ever vote GOP instead of a third party candidate like Jill Stein

Maybe the Democrats prevented the Green party candidate from getting on the ballot in a particular district. Wouldn't that be a cruel irony for the Democrats.

(Truth be told, I have no idea if this is happening this time around, but it definitely was during the Nader campaign.)posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:29 AM on February 21, 2016

The strategic voting thing continues to be a pointlessly divisive argument for everyone who doesn't live in a swing state. I'm glad that my vote won't really count so that I'll be free to vote my conscience if Clinton is the nominee.posted by dialetheia at 9:34 AM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

And as twisted and perverted this ideology was, Hitler was pretty consistent about it.

obligatory Sobchak "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos"posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:34 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

The big question in my mind about Trump is will he follow through on all the stuff he says he will do. It seems...unlikely...that he will force Mexico to pay for a large wall on the border, or that he really will ban Muslims from entering the US. But I have a good friend whose Muslim parents live outside the US. To her, this is not just Trump blather, it's something that could make a large negative impact on her life.posted by sallybrown at 9:37 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

The strategic voting thing continues to be a pointlessly divisive argument for everyone who doesn't live in a swing state.

Many of us live in swing states. It's not pointless for us, thanks.

(Which goes equally for Clinton primary supporters voting Sanders in the general.)posted by cjelli at 9:38 AM on February 21, 2016

There is a lawsuit pending in Broward County, Florida, challenging the eligibility of both Cruz and Rubio — Cruz because of where he was born, Rubio because of where his parents were born.

“I think the lawyers have to determine that that — and not— it was a retweet, not so much with Marco. I'm not really that familiar with Marco's circumstances,” Trump said Sunday morning.

This is just so gross and disheartening.posted by sallybrown at 9:40 AM on February 21, 2016

That's fine. My objection is to hectoring strangers about Nader and whatnot and acting entitled to votes when it truly doesn't matter for most of us. At least find out if their vote is strategically important before telling people who they are required to vote for.posted by dialetheia at 9:45 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

To her, this is not just Trump blather, it's something that could make a large negative impact on her life.

Yes, she's right. Even if he doesn't build the wall (and I actually think he will and provide Mexico the loan while he's at it), it still wouldn't be good for either group if Trump is elected. If you believe that the election of the president kind of sets the mood of the temperament of the country, then electing Trump would pretty much give the okay to every closest racist, bigot, and white supremacist to start harassing and pushing around immigrants and minorities. And when the US gives into unchecked populism and nativism, those groups get hurt.

I don't want four years of that. I don't even want a Purge Day of that.posted by FJT at 9:49 AM on February 21, 2016 [7 favorites]

Flirting with 4 years of Trump, who let's say this again for the benefit of Bernie Bros, is almost literally Hitler, is out of the question.

Bernie Bros are accelerationists who support Trump now, this is definitely a concept worth holding on toposted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:55 AM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm definitely voting 3rd party if she is the nominee in a state that, if the Republican wins the Presidency, is one that is probably going to swing to them for the first time in a while. If anybody tries to blame me for the loss when I've been screaming from the rooftops that she is dangerously vulnerable to a loss compared to other names the Democrats could have nominated, I'm not gonna even argue. I'm just gonna laugh. The party made her nomination happen, it can take the blame or the kudos however this turns out.posted by Drinky Die at 9:58 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

“I don't know. I really — I've never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it. As somebody said, he's not. And I retweeted it. I have 14 million people between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and I retweet things, and we start dialogue and it's very interesting,” Trump said.

I heard someone on the Internet say that Trump is really a shape-shifting reptile. Personally, I don't have an opinion on that. I think, it's up for the people to decide whether it is true. But, IF it is true, then one should take a really hard look on whether shape-shifting reptiles are eligible for the presidency.posted by sour cream at 10:00 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

My objection is to hectoring strangers about Nader and whatnot and acting entitled to votes when it truly doesn't matter for most of us.

Agreed; that's not cool.

But I don't think that applies to general exhortations that 'people should vote strategically,' or 'I hope [candidate]'s supports vote strategically,' since that's not directed towards any individual.posted by cjelli at 10:18 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Frankly, if Hillary is as half a compromised a DLC-corporatist-neoliberal-New Democrat as the rhetoric against her claims, she'll do just fine as a heel for progressives and leftists to rally around for the next four years. Elect her and then attack her policies while she's sitting in the White House, and prepare to primary her in 2020. If she's really so bad, then Andrew Johnson her, that is if American progressives can really have the tenacity and cohesion to match the Radical Republicans. Either way, if Hillary will actually push left, then you get what you want. If she stays the same, or even goes right, then make an example out of her. Win-win. There's no need to go full accelerationist by electing a GOP candidate.posted by Apocryphon at 10:27 AM on February 21, 2016 [12 favorites]

Nobody is intentionally going accelerationist at all, luckily. People might be talking about it in a tiny corner of reddit somewhere, but the vast majority of Sanders supporters, if they decide not to support Clinton, just won't vote (with the apparent exception of roomthreeseventeen, who has a pre-existing affection for Bloomberg - which is fine! Luckily we are all free to vote as we like). Apathy is the real danger. I would love it if people voted out of duty, but much of the Democratic coalition simply doesn't. There needs to be a reason for people to vote for someone, not just against people. Democrats win when we have a positive, exciting, coherent message that can turn out our voters.

You make a great point about 2020 though - looking at the splits for voters under 45 (of whom Sanders won 75% in Nevada yesterday, with a stunning 89% of people under 30!) does make me much more hopeful about the future of the party.posted by dialetheia at 10:38 AM on February 21, 2016 [16 favorites]

More on Bush's insane cash burn: Inside Jeb's $150 Million Failure.
-“The Jeb people knew that literally every day when he was governor, he’d walk the steps of the Capitol at a jog pace,” one longtime Bush bundler and confidant said recently. “The building was 30 stories high. You’d hide because you wouldn’t want him to catch you and make you walk the stairs. He’d email you at 5:30 a.m. This was not at all a low-energy guy. It wasn’t true, but it stuck.”

“They got defined as ‘low energy’ by a guy who took an escalator to his own announcement.”posted by Drinky Die at 10:44 AM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

I believe that youth are definitely the future of the party and want to do whatever is possible to ease the generational gap between Clinton and Sanders supporters.

My read is that Bernie is fighting more for the heart and soul of the party and if the electorate chooses Clinton he would be a good leader in getting her elected despite policy differences.

I think the same thing happened in 08 where despite Clinton and Obama having significant differences she joined his cabinet as one of the strongest Secretaries of State in recent memory.

The war should be about ideas and I don't have any problems with a centrist democrat adopting progressive ideas because thats the way Democratic principles tend to operate.

Youthful progressive voices will go a long way towards negating some of the fearful reactionary politics that's still dominating the other end of the electorate.posted by vuron at 10:49 AM on February 21, 2016

dialetheia's breakdown of different GOP sub-factions earlier was very helpful, and explains why many of the Tea Party actually detest Trump (question #2, Quinnipiac University National Poll, 2-17-16), and that among groups within the GOP, he loses out only them and the "Very Conservative" (question #1). I guess if Cruz and Rubio both lose to Trump, we really are seeing the dissolution of the Tea Party movement and its discrediting as a political brand, though for totally different reasons from what I suggested a year ago.posted by Apocryphon at 11:15 AM on February 21, 2016

A middle class that once saw itself central to the American Dream now seems to be on the outside looking in. And what they see with their noses pressed to the glass is a top tier of Americans accumulating wealth and income with little room at the party for anyone else. ...

Americans have long looked to government to right this imbalance, but this time they see Washington bailing out those on top at the expense of everyone else. In a 2015 Pew survey, about seven in ten Americans said that government economic policies since the recession have helped large banks, financial institutions, corporations, and the wealthy — and have done little or nothing at all to help the middle class, small businesses or those in poverty.

And politicians to their ironic credit confirm exactly what the American people are seeing: tone deaf Republicans who want to water down regulations on the financial industry and prioritize tax cuts for the wealthy – and tone deaf Democrats who claim to speak for working families but take millions in donations and speaking fees from the same Wall Street investment bankers whose recklessness helped create the crash.

What many Americans see is a go-along, get-along political culture that coddles the status quo establishment and holds no one responsible for the economic hardship the few visited upon the many.

So where do they turn for explanation and help? Enter Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

It'll be interesting to see what Nevada looks like for the Republicans on Tuesday. After that, they only have that short haul until Super Tuesday when I think this'll become a lot clearer.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:17 AM on February 21, 2016

Millenials know this isn't about 'free stuff'. This is about getting back 'stolen stuff'.

The end result is that the have nots continue to bicker over a declining portion of the pie. Witness the age divide in this thread between Boomers and Millenials.

That dynamic is also why Sanders' policies are intended to increase the portion of the pie we're fighting over. I mean, that's the very definition of fighting income inequality.

This picture is key in understanding the opportunities that may be available. It depicts the evolution of labor share - the ratio of real wages to average labor productivity - in the nonfarm business sector. This ratio remains low by historical standards. The low level suggests that, for whatever reason, labor is unusually cheap... The prospect of higher demand could lead to more innovation and faster total factor productivity growth over this period. I argue here that we saw exactly that kind of effect from anticipated higher demand in the Great Depression. Such an effect would make faster growth an even better deal.

Flirting with 4 years of Trump, who let's say this again for the benefit of Bernie Bros, is almost literally Hitler, is out of the question.

Could you walk that back a little, please? Asking as a woman, ardent Sanders supporter, and daughter of a Holocaust survivor.posted by Room 641-A at 11:43 AM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

Reflecting on the Trump SC win this morning, I certainly understand the fear that that guy could actually become president. But the only way I can see that happening is if the Republican party blows up so completely that there is no actual party left by September, and we have 3 or 4 candidates running in the general election. His nativist, racist garbage is appealing to a rabid base, but the U.S. is only about 64% white (I'm assuming very few non-whites are on board the Trump train). That means he starts with a maximum possible base of around 60%. Given that many, many white people are not actually nativist or super xenophobic or deeply racist, I don't see how Trump could possibly break 35-40% general support, no matter how rabid his base becomes. (Unless, that is, I live in a really different country than I've experienced my entire life. Which is possible, but I've been around a bit.)

So if it's a two-way race, I can't see him winning. (The thing about appeals to fear based on race or ethnicity in the 21st century is that there are just far more non-white people around, and far more white people who love, work with, are friends with, have married non-white people than even 20 years ago. Race and ethnicity become more difficult to otherize every day.) The fear for me is that if we have 3 or 4 candidates in the general election this fall, 35% could become a winning percentage.

2. Trump wins R nomination, Bloomberg enters and we have a three-way race. Bloomberg would take votes from the D candidate, sure, but also from Trump. I don't see him taking enough votes to pull a D candidate below, say, 40% (though I'm not real confident about that). Or perhaps Bloomberg could pull enough votes from both to win.

3. Trump wins majority delegates, R establishment freaks and keeps the nomination from him via brokered convention. He runs as independent, we have three-way race with two hard-right candidates and the D nominee. Outcome becomes less clear, but I still see the Democrat winning.

4. Same as above, but Bloomberg still enters and we have a four-way race with two hard-right candidates, a right-leaning centrist independent, and the D nominee. Outcome very unclear, maximum fear scenario.

One thing, however, is clear to me: whoever wins will be the candidate who captures the voters described above: "A middle class that once saw itself central to the American Dream now seems to be on the outside looking in." On preview, no matter the variables, I think whichever candidate can most effectively distill, explain and sell the essential point of kliuless' excellent comment above, will likely have the winning campaign message. Trump is hitting those notes, but the hate and otherization is a deal-breaker for most of us. I just fear an election scenario where "most of us" will not be the determining percentage of voters.

*n.b.: this all may be totally stupid. As a thoughtful person--like everyone commenting here--I often lean on reason and information and facts too much when trying to predict things like this, and have a hard time accounting for emotion in people's decision-making.posted by LooseFilter at 11:43 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

why can't we say Trump is Hitler-esque? There was a really interesting piece on Slate discussing similarities between Trump's approach and fascism, and while there were significant distinctions, there were eerie similarities.posted by angrycat at 11:47 AM on February 21, 2016

What is the evidence that Clinton can win the general election in the current climate? ("All the Republicans are crazy" doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing argument.)posted by an animate objects at 11:49 AM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm going to vote for Sanders in the primary, if it's not too late. If Clinton wins the nomination, I'll vote for her in the general.

And if Clinton wins the general, then on the very day of her inauguration I'm going to put a bumper sticker on my car that says DON'T BLAME ME: I VOTED FOR BERNIE.posted by Faint of Butt at 11:53 AM on February 21, 2016 [15 favorites]

What is the evidence that Clinton can win the general election in the current climate?

Didn't mean to be too pithy in my reply just then: I mean to say that, if Clinton can capture the voters who are disenfranchised with the power structure and status quo, which is clearly not working at all for most of us, then she can win. If not, not.

I have my own opinions about her insight, ability, and willingness to do that, but can't know what may happen this fall. I've never seen an election like this.posted by LooseFilter at 11:56 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

You can call Trump anything you want and say anything to get Hillary elected. I'm done here.posted by Room 641-A at 11:58 AM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

why can't we say Trump is Hitler-esque?

You can. Someone in this conversation has simply asked that you refrain from doing so, as that specific comparison is deeply personal and emotionally charged for her. So, do as you wish, but one hopes that politeness and respect will influence further possible comparisons along those lines.

On preview: Room 641-A please don't exit the conversation. I value your comments, and when thoughtful people exit any conversation, we are poorer for it.posted by LooseFilter at 12:00 PM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]

A few scenarios*:

5. Same as 4, except the D nominee is Hillary, who prevails in a very close primary fight and is widely perceived to have been selected via brokered convention (despite the rumor being most likely untrue). She wins the nomination, loses the mandate. Revolt risk in the Democratic party is at record heights. RNC is already over for a week and Trump has already announced his third-party candidacy. Anti-Hillary groups, furious at the party establishment but perceiving progressive victory to be inevitable since the right-wing is divided, switch to an unprecedentedly massive write-in campaign for Sanders. Despite only capturing the attention, much less support of a minority of formerly pro-Bernie voters, disgruntlement at the party machinery and discomfort at voting for Hillary causes uncertainty in many Democrats, especially with the youth. Sanders himself rejects any sort of third party run, but his movement has marched onwards without him, intent on drafting him via write-in; direct democracy by sidestepping the party nomination process entirely. Bloomberg jumps in as centrist unity figure. Soft five-way race. The War of the Five POTUS.posted by Apocryphon at 12:02 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

Of those Ohio, Virginia, Florida are the most critical and indeed if Republicans lose Florida or Ohio they basically can't win.

So really the entire election tends to be decided by voters in a handful of states many of whom are whiter than normal (Iowa and Ohio), older than normal (NH and Florida) or will be driven by Latino GOTV efforts (Colorado and Nevada).

So a lot of Hillary's electibility is driven note by head to head polling but how she does among critical voting blocks in these battleground states.

That's why Hillary is focusing so much on Unions, Black voters, Latino voters, etc because they tend to break pretty solidly democratic and GotV strategies can really payoff.

Sanders would have the same structural advantages as Hillary but it's currently unclear how strong his support would be among these critical voting blocks in battleground states mainly because there hasn't been a whole lot of public polling thus far.posted by vuron at 12:06 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

But isn't the big thing thats missing from this conversation who they choose as VP's? I seem to recall it being a very close game with McCain until he chose Palin as his running mate.

It seems to me that since virtually none of the candidates are ideal (I realize that is always the case, but this year it seems especially so)greater weight would be put into who's on the ticket with them.posted by newpotato at 12:08 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, I mean, Romney was probably always going to lose, but picking Paul Ryan hurt his campaign. And Sarah Palin. Yeah.posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:09 PM on February 21, 2016

I think it was a combination of Palin turning people off, McCain appearing clueless when the financial crisis hit, and Obama appearing competent in an environment where a lot of people were looking for an alternative after 8 years of the Republicans fucking up. Democrats were winning House and Senate seats in red states in those days too.posted by eagles123 at 12:11 PM on February 21, 2016

Hillary would likely pick a younger Latino leader especially against Trump for a variety of reasons but mainly because the Democrats have been looking for a strong Latino Democratic leader since at least Cisneros and a Latino VP would definitely help solidify the Democratic party as the party that embraces Latinos.

Sanders would likely need to pick a more centrist female VP (preferably minority and southern) do undo some of the conservative rhetoric about "NY values" aka Anti-semitic dog-whistles.

Ignoring the hangers on on the Republican side:

Cruz, likely needs to pick a more centrist Northern but that won't undermine his support among evangelicals.

Rubiobot- Nikki Haley

Trump basically some "maverick" that won't mind being a persona-non-grata in Republican circles. Probably a former Republican wonk of some type or a Maverick like Joe Lieberman from across the aisle.posted by vuron at 12:18 PM on February 21, 2016

There are actually some schools of thought that indicate that it actually helps the Republican agenda when they are the party in opposition to the Presidency because then they can engage in wanton obstructionism and still advance a conservative agenda at all levels of government. When they actually have the Presidency they don't typically know how to govern particularly well and tend to overreach alot.

Of course with 2 supreme court seats likely up for grabs in the next Presidency it's a bad time to be the opposition party because we could easily see a transition from a 5-4 narrow conservative majority to a 5-4 liberal majority (or even 6-3 if Kennedy leaves) or a shift to a near impregnable 6-3 conservative court.posted by vuron at 12:24 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

A Bloomberg-Webb ticket would make sense in the context of a bipartisan unity run, not that there's any chance of it happening.posted by Apocryphon at 12:24 PM on February 21, 2016

Rubio should pick Kasich. Try and nail down Florida and Ohio. I don't know who Haley brings into his camp for the general. Though I think it would be a really good thing for the Republican party to set up Haley as a future leader.posted by Drinky Die at 12:26 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

What pisses me off about this comment so much is that implying that Sanders supporters - the same supporters who are responsible for the volunteer work and contributions that make up the overwhelming bulk of his support - don't work hard, and are looking for handouts. His entire campaign has been built on the hard work of his supporters.posted by MysticMCJ at 12:28 PM on February 21, 2016 [26 favorites]

I'm not comfortable with the idea that Democrats should mandate ideological purity tests either way.

Ah, the "purity test" ploy -- implying that anyone who finds Clinton's antiprogressive history objectionable is somehow rigidly dogmatic. Apparently, we should all be more flexible, and not ask our politicians to have values that agree with our own.posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:37 PM on February 21, 2016 [12 favorites]

Um. I am not calling Trump Hitler to get Clinton elected. I am wondering why, when there is open discussion of Trump's fascist's tendencies, is it not okay to talk about it. Do I need to name another fascist? Do I need to not say fascism? Do I need to say that I am not accusing Sanders's supporters of fascism?

I just sort of don't understand the universe this thread is coming from, aside from a roaring Hate for Clinton that sort of devours everything in its path.

I don't know that I'd call Trump a fascist, but I would say that he wants to be a unitary executive who embodies the state and promises to restore the volk's destiny by punishing the simultaneously weak and strong other who have cheated them.posted by The Gaffer at 12:54 PM on February 21, 2016 [15 favorites]

I'm not clear where the idea that he wants to be a unitary executive comes from. His pitch is that he can make anything happen by making a deal, not that he will do it himself by force of will.posted by Drinky Die at 12:55 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

I am wondering why, when there is open discussion of Trump's fascist's tendencies, is it not okay to talk about it.

Did her original request not answer that question for you? Throwing Godwin arguments into things is understandably very offensive to many people. All she was asking was for you to be sensitive to the feelings of people for whom Hitler is not a rhetorical device.

Could you walk that back a little, please? Asking as a woman, ardent Sanders supporter, and daughter of a Holocaust survivor.posted by dialetheia at 12:57 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

I am not calling Trump Hitler to get Clinton elected.

You'll have to quote where someone said that, because I have not read that in this thread.

I am wondering why, when there is open discussion of Trump's fascist's tendencies, is it not okay to talk about it.

It's absolutely OK, no one has said otherwise.

Do I need to name another fascist? Do I need to not say fascism? Do I need to say that I am not accusing Sanders's supporters of fascism?

In order: yes, because someone very politely asked you to, and explained why; no, see above; no, because that's a strawman you are projecting onto comments that have not said that.

I just sort of don't understand the universe this thread is coming from, aside from a roaring Hate for Clinton that sort of devours everything in its path.

Well, I've been reading a really interesting thread with thoughtful and very informed discussion that has occasionally become heated and personal, but not overly so. It seems to me that you're projecting quite a lot onto what you're reading that is not there. I am willing to be corrected on that, but you'll have to point to specific comments.posted by LooseFilter at 1:05 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

"Regardless of which side of the aisle you sat regarding Bill Clinton’s subsequent impeachment – the “he’s a scoundrel” side of the aisle or the “he’s good at his job, so whatever!” one – the whole nation agreed that Lewinsky was a disgrace. Hence it’s not surprising that Hillary Clinton agreed. Or that I agreed, too: Lewinsky was disgusting. I would never be that kind of girl. But as the sexual dramatics unfolded each evening on the six o’clock news and I began late-adolescent forays into things that fell short of sexual relations, I privately wondered: if Monica Lewinsky was a slut, what did that make me?"posted by dialetheia at 1:09 PM on February 21, 2016 [17 favorites]

Could you walk that back a little, please? Asking as a woman, ardent Sanders supporter, and daughter of a Holocaust survivor.

[Talking about Trump and fascism is fine, but let's drop now who meant what by saying what and whether it was good faith, bad faith, or clueless.]posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:57 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

One of the most interesting things about the reintroduction of class issues into the Democratic campaign has been finding out what people believe constitutes "middle class." I've even seen people on twitter arguing that people making $100k+ are middle class! Even granting that different incomes go further in different cities, it's still pretty amazing. I really liked this breakdown of what Americans actually make:

-If you make more than $10,000, you earn more than 24.2% of Americans, or 37 million people.
-If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans.
-If you make more than $30,000, you earn more than 53.2% of Americans.
-If you make more than $50,000, you earn more than 73.4% of Americans.
-If you make more than $100,000, you earn more than 92.6% of Americans.
-You are officially in the top 1% of American wage earners if you earn more than $250,000.posted by dialetheia at 2:34 PM on February 21, 2016 [16 favorites]

That Lewinsky article is really great dialetheia - it's everything I've been thinking about the situation (I'm also nearly the same age as the author and grew up in the same region, so it really reflects my experiences).posted by melissasaurus at 2:44 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

One of the most interesting things about the reintroduction of class issues into the Democratic campaign

Economic class issues, perhaps, but I ain't heard shit about social class coming out of the Democrat side. Which is too bad for that party because TRUMP's great advantage is being lower class and unashamed of it. E.g. TRUMP could certainly afford a more refined hairstyle which the higher classes would not mock, but instead he maintains his signature 'do and gains power when his enemies resort to joking on it. You see above "short-fingered vulgarian" quoted - the old-school meaning of "vulgar" is "of the commoners".

When I say no purity tests I mean things like "No new taxes ever" and "Abortions should always be illegal" which are definitely present on the Republican side. For the most part I haven't seen similar pledges on the left and for the most part that seems to make the left more likely to actually govern.posted by vuron at 4:11 PM on February 21, 2016

I've even seen people on twitter arguing that people making $100k+ are middle class!

Mrs. Clinton is using a definition of middle class that has long been popular among Democratic policy makers, from her husband to Barack Obama when he was a candidate: any household that makes $250,000 or less a year.

About 80,000 people showed up for the state's caucuses, a significant drop-off compared to 2008, the last time there was a competitive Democratic race, according to officials at the Nevada Democratic Party. That year, 117,600 people participated.

This is the most interesting link about Donald Trump and economic and social class I've read this election season. It's from a reasonable conservative perspective and I think it's worth reading the whole thing. It misses some things, like the waning power of organized labor, that are factors in the current situation, but it is still the best look at class from a conservative perspective I've seen.

It so happens that you can determine a huge amount about the economic and social prospects of people in America today by asking one remarkably simple question: how do they get most of their income? Broadly speaking—there are exceptions, which I’ll get to in a moment—it’s from one of four sources: returns on investment, a monthly salary, an hourly wage, or a government welfare check. People who get most of their income from one of those four things have a great many interests in common, so much so that it’s meaningful to speak of the American people as divided into an investment class, a salary class, a wage class, and a welfare class.

It’s probably necessary to point out explicitly here that these classes aren’t identical to the divisions that Americans like to talk about. That is, there are plenty of people with light-colored skin in the welfare class, and plenty of people with darker skin in the wage class. Things tend to become a good deal more lily-white in the two wealthier classes, though even there you do find people of color. In the same way, women, gay people, disabled people, and so on are found in all four classes, and how they’re treated depends a great deal on which of these classes they’re in. If you’re a disabled person, for example, your chances of getting meaningful accommodations to help you deal with your disability are by and large considerably higher if you bring home a salary than they are if you work for a wage.

From an academic sense upper middle class does extend all the way up to the top 1%. So basically household incomes in the range of 97,000+

Note this also typically excludes household wealth in the form of home equity because for the most part that is a non liquid asset.

For a site like Metafilter that has a high percentage of highly paid tech professionals in exceedingly expensive cities there are probably further gradations but for the most part middle class is a very broad category.posted by vuron at 5:25 PM on February 21, 2016

I don't want to quibble or anything, but both of those articles start from Bill Clinton's definition and only note that Sanders says he wants to increase taxes on "the wealthy" - he doesn't mention the middle class at all in any of the quoted statements. The assumption that he's implicitly saying that anyone who isn't "wealthy" is necessarily middle-class seems unsupported. I do love CNN calling candidates out on a fake middle class definition, though, when they'd be the first in line to criticize Sanders for "middle-class" tax increases on ... earners making less than $250k.

I guess if we're using the mean income to define the center, maybe that kind of analysis might make sense? But since the income distribution is damn near exponential, that would be totally inappropriate. Quintiles seem like a much more appropriate way to analyze it, so according to e.g. the Brookings Institutions's figures, the middle quintile, or true middle-class, would be from about $40-65k. That seems much more reasonable. The upper middle class should be the next quintile at $65-105k - and the lower-middle class should be the quintile below at $20-40k.posted by dialetheia at 5:43 PM on February 21, 2016 [7 favorites]

Most Democrats tend to use an expansive view of the middle class because selling big tax increases on upper middle class workers in coastal cities have been a rough sell. You are going to struggle to convince coastal liberals that are already priced out of the housing market that they need to sacrifice more.

Let's not pretend that Bernies plans can entirely be funded by eating the 1%posted by vuron at 5:58 PM on February 21, 2016

Well, as far as the health care plan goes, the 1% starts at $250k and that's where he starts increasing income tax rates. Starting at $29k, people would pay a 2.2% income-based premium on their payroll taxes that is intended to replace health care premiums currently paid to private insurance companies, so not a "real" tax increase when weighed against the much greater amount they're saving on those exorbitant premiums. There are employer taxes and an increase in capital gains taxes and estate taxes as well, but none of those really hit the middle class (and again, that employer tax replaces the employer contributions currently paid toward private insurance premiums - most employers would save money). His estate tax increases only affect estates > $3.5 million, and the college plan is paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation that is already working in many countries and has been recommended by hundreds of economists.posted by dialetheia at 6:07 PM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

So the 1% is comprised of.....3 million people? Or is it less than that cuz they don't count the childrens and the unemployed?posted by ian1977 at 6:09 PM on February 21, 2016

Let's not pretend that Bernies plans can entirely be funded by eating the 1%

No-one ever has. Healthcare is paid for by taking the current payroll deduction for an HMO, and putting it into a Trust, and since the middle-men who don't add value, but do add cost are cut out, we have enough money to extend coverage to everyone.

It *does* suck if you are, say, the CEO of a Health Insurance company, but you know, fuck them.posted by mikelieman at 6:10 PM on February 21, 2016 [22 favorites]

Trump would pick Carson as his running mate but then insist that Carson be played by Cuba Gooding Jr.posted by ian1977 at 7:01 PM on February 21, 2016 [9 favorites]

This may have been suggested upthread, but the "Clinton stops Bernie" dynamic is mostly a media invention. Surely people have noticed that Clinton ekes by in the two caucuses (which is inside pool, politically speaking.) I'm not surprised, and neither should anyone else be surprised that when party machinery is such an elemental part of the tabulation, the party machinery has an advantage. Let's wait to see how primary votes turn out before we extinguish the Bern. He's done quite well thus far (N.H) and South Carolina will tell us a lot.

The tendency to see this as a horse race is natural, but the real timbre of this cycle is in how well the disaffected "regular" folks make their voice heard.posted by CincyBlues at 7:31 PM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

Let's be honest the Sanders proposal includes a 6.2 employer side payroll tax and a 2.2 income tax increase plus some other tax policies around the edges but the vast majority of it is in the form of increased payroll taxes and income taxes.

That's not necessarily a dealbreaker for me by any means even though I think the possibility of getting it past a Republican dominated congress is basically nil. But you have to deal with a whole range of criticism concerning your economic assumptions. Even if you somehow get the liberal economists to assume that Friedman's projections are somewhat in line with reality (which based on the analysis of Thorpe, the CEA Economists and Krugman all seems unlikely) you still have to deal with all the right leaning economists that will pull out economic projections that show Sanders proposals shrinking the economy and costing jobs.

Who is right? It's hard to say because economic modeling when you try to deal with trillions of dollars worth of programs is incredibly tricky and let's be perfectly honest prone to shenanigans when you get into dynamic modeling. I personally would like to see additional analysis of the universal health care proposal because personally I would like for the US to adopt universal health care (although I'm not firmly committed to the single-payer alternative as there is some evidence that a mixed model works in some European nations like France).

Even beyond the economic analysis I would like to hear more details on how Sanders plans on dealing with Republican obstructionism because as much as I would like to believe that a series of marches on Washington might influence Congress the recent election trends especially in non-Presidential election years has shown that the voters simply won't punish the Republicans for being obstructionist and actually Republican members of Congress are actually more afraid of being primaried to the Right than they are of seeming incompetent at governance.posted by vuron at 7:42 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

So the 1% is comprised of.....3 million people? Or is it less than that cuz they don't count the childrens and the unemployed?

Typically they talk about household units since that is the way taxes are calculated and the census does its surveys.

So there are 125 million households in 2015. The top 1% of households would be 1.25 million. The average household is about 2.5 people, so you might say that there are 3.1 million people in families of the 1% including their children. So your estimate was about right.posted by JackFlash at 7:45 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Let's be honest the Sanders proposal includes a 6.2 employer side payroll tax and a 2.2 income tax increase plus some other tax policies around the edges but the vast majority of it is in the form of increased payroll taxes and income taxes.

... in lieu of private insurance premiums, yes. I mean, I get that the Republicans will use that misleading framing, but it's important to be honest and note that those taxes will replace all private health insurance-related costs for baseline care.posted by dialetheia at 7:46 PM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]

I would like to hear more details on how Sanders plans on dealing with Republican obstructionism

Anecdotally, Sanders served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007, and in the Senate from 2007 to the present, and over the course of that time developed a reputation for being able to cooperate with Republicans and reach mutually agreeable compromises. I know that's no guarantee that the current crop of Rs wouldn't just obstruct and stymie him at every turn, but why would they treat Clinton any differently?posted by Faint of Butt at 7:47 PM on February 21, 2016 [9 favorites]

I don't want to reopen an old debate, and I'm not much one for the idea of newspaper bias, but I was trying to find a Times article earlier and googled "sanders site:nytimes.com". Wow -- even in the context of having just lost Nevada, that's a lot of negative coverage with almost nothing positive going back multiple weeks. Maybe it's just reflecting Google bias towards popular articles or the establishment more generally, rather than NYT bias per se, but it's kind of striking, at least at this particular moment (presumably it will change in a few hours or days).posted by chortly at 8:14 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

I see from this NYT article that the Clinton campaign has succeeded in getting their spin put on the Latino vote in Nevada. Their argument is severely flawed because they fall victim to the ecological fallacy, though - just because they won in more heavily Latino areas doesn't mean they won the majority of Latinos. As the pollster himself pointed out, many younger Latinos live in whiter areas or in college districts, and Sanders cleaned up with younger Latinos. Really disappointing to see such a facile analysis in the New York Times. They could easily argue that it could have been closer to a tie because of the high margin of error, but there's no reason to disbelieve this poll just because the Clinton campaign makes an appeal to a clear logical fallacy.posted by dialetheia at 8:14 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Clinton's proposals are simply a lot less dramatic and thus require only marginal Republican buy-in. In contrast Sanders proposals require a campaign described political revolution even though the exact dynamics of achieving that political revolution seem to be somewhat vague.

I like Sanders and might even vote for him in the primaries in Texas (early voting next week) but I also don't think his legislative agenda is particularly plausible in the current political climate.

But if his agenda can bring out the millenials and not scare off too many of the centrist Democrats I'd be happy to support him in November.

On the other hand if he can't close the gap with Clinton I'm also going to be content to vote for her in November. In short I like that the party is trying to collectively arguing about how to achieve progressive ideals whether it's Clinton's pragmatic incrementalism or Sanders revolutionary stance because I think there is widespread consensus among both Centrists and Liberals about the basics of domestic policy.

I think there is more differences of opinion on foreign policy with Clinton representing a more interventionist viewpoint but it's pretty clear that both candidates see a moral obligation for the US to use it's influence to better the world (although obviously difference in tactics) as both Clinton and Sanders seem to reject isolationist tendencies.

I suspect that the political will is not really present in regards to implementing a single-payer solution because it seems that a plurality of voters seem somewhat happy with their current health care options and ACA has made some substantial improvements around the margins (this is even better in states that adopted the Medicaid expansion for lower income residents). Health Care is still a big concern among a lot of voters especially in regards to out of pocket expenses in the form of copays and deductibles but ACA has done a remarkably decent job of reigning in health care expenditures and expanding access to health care insurance.

I'm definitely interested in the universal higher education proposals although the details are a little light and I suspect that the majority of the programs would be devoted towards offering 2 years at a Community College because they are generally the best suited towards absorbing a massive influx of students and educating them at a low cost per semester hour. A lot would have to be done so that the lions share of any program doesn't go to the whole industry of predatory for-profit Higher Ed institutions but that is another program detail.posted by vuron at 8:22 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

3 millionish 1%ers. So that is....60,000 per state? (Obviously not evenly distributed but whatevs) Not trying to be obtuse but I just never really wrapped my head around it. 60,000 per state. That's like one decent suburb per state filled with people making over $250,000 per year. But what's the spread amongst them? The difference between the low end and the top end is so yuge that 250k barely seems to count. How many $1M per year people are there?posted by ian1977 at 8:34 PM on February 21, 2016

That's something like 0.4%. The 0.5% mark is around $870,000.posted by Justinian at 8:40 PM on February 21, 2016

The pollster also pointed out that based upon the low sample size of Latinos in the entrance poll the margin of error one way or another could account for Sanders victory among Latino voters.

I think the safest assumption given the sample size is that results are inconclusive with the understanding that neither party might have an advantage in regards to Latino voters at least within the context of caucus goers (who I think most people would tend to agree represent the most involved party members). It seems both camps have reason to spin NV positively.

I'm less clear about the long term impact of Latino voters because Texas is the first primary that Latino voters will be a dominant voice and unfortunately polling in Texas has been remarkably limited with PPP having the only recent (and relevant) poll.

The interesting thing will be whether Sanders organization can use the remainder of this week to close the ground in SC where African American voters are clearly the kingmakers (55 percent of SC primary voters were African American in 2008). Sanders absolutely needs to close the gap among African Americans to avoid Clinton having a major victory there.

I think Early Voting will be an interesting thing in regards to the primaries as it's unclear if Early Voters will still be feeling the Bern of a NH win or if the Clinton victory in NV (and presumably SC) will impact Early Voting for the Super Tuesday primaries. Personally I think people are probably more willing to give Sanders a shot now than they have been but if he gets hammered by some bad polling data there could be a late break towards Clinton.posted by vuron at 8:42 PM on February 21, 2016

So call it half of 3 million....that seems low for the 250k folks. Only 1.5 million people make between $250 and $870k? It seems like there would be quite a few more people making ~$250k. Dentists and lawyers that own their practice. Realtors in high price areas. Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse it just seems...low. $250 isn't THAT much in an area like San Francisco. It's a solid middle class lifestyle that you could get for like $80k in the Midwest right?posted by ian1977 at 8:44 PM on February 21, 2016

"I see from this NYT article that the Clinton campaign has succeeded in getting their spin put on the Latino vote in Nevada."

The headline "No, the Polling Doesn’t Prove Bernie Sanders Won the Hispanic Vote in Nevada" is exactly accurate. It simply does not prove the assertion of the Sanders camp, nor does it specifically refute it, even though it lays out reasons not to trust the claim.

This is basically a case of cherrypicking a favorable exit poll which also proved to be quite wrong about the final outcome of the contest.

Given that Sanders' campaign manager put out a press release headlined "Sanders Wins Latino Vote in Nevada", while losing the strongest latino precincts -- as well as those used by casino workers -- by about 20 points, there is ample evidence to point out that the entrance poll in question got it wrong. Nate Silver said as much. Frankly, it was an unwise thing for Tad Devine to claim, as it flies in the face of the bulk of the evidence, has racially-clueless overtones, and makes subsequent claims by the Sanders camp less credible and likely more subject to thorough review by the press.

Here's what NBC said about their entrance poll the other day
"Hispanics – nearly two in 10 caucus participants – are tilting to Sanders, with 54 percent support"... but it also goes on later to say "a 14-point margin of sampling error".

So, we're talking about 54% support, plus or minus 14 points... assuming that the polling is actually as scientific as they claim. Any Sanders supporters here believe that translates into "Sanders Wins Latino Vote in Nevada", even when the poll's outcome was clearly off in other major respects?

It would've been far wiser to say "Sanders Gains Strong Support From Latinos in NV", laying out the evidence that tilted their way and letting the media draw their own conclusions, *especailly* after a significant loss.

The truth is, unless all the people doing the entrance polling spoke Spanish -- highly unlikely -- it's really easy to see how these kinds of polls can be fundamentally flawed, as it would skew their respondents towards younger, English-fluent, activist latino voters who wanted to disclose their voting intention.

Silver was exactly right last week about Nevada being a really hard state to poll for, and caucuses in general being much harder to poll for, too. Entrance polls in this case suffer all of these problems, and then some.posted by markkraft at 8:53 PM on February 21, 2016

ian1997, if you read Thomas Piketty's book he's mostly in agreement with you that the problem isn't so much the 1% but the 0.1%. The people making $250,000 a year are late career doctors and lawyers and executives who really did work their way up in the hierarchy and whose high income basically pays for them to put their kids through college without debt and have secure retirements, but not to establish massive inheritances or create dynasties, and they live a lot more like people earning $60k than people earning $1m. (Also as it is family income you can even, somewhat rarely, get into the 1% with a couple who are both late-career civil servants or skilled tradesmen, at least in union states.)

Piketty's suggested reforms to fight inequality focus mainly on the 0.1% and above whose money starts to come from inheritance, capital investments, and things like that, rather than from a salary for labor.

Not that $250k is anything to sneeze at! But you're right that it's not really the same order of magnitude as a Mitt Romney type, and that a lot of proposed reforms focus on investment income and capital gains that would affect the superrich far more than the "mere" 1% who work for a living and earn a salary.posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:56 PM on February 21, 2016 [9 favorites]

Keep in mind that the 1% typically mainly measures direct income numbers and doesn't really address accumulated assets unless those capital gains are realized in a given year. Which most investors tend to avoid for reasons of tax liability.

The number of households with combined income of higher than $400,000 a year (which represents the 1%) tends to decrease rather rapidly as the wealth concentration just gets bigger and bigger.

The 1% represent people typically at the top of the ladder in terms of professional development (established lawyers, doctors, top middle managers) or more probably two income families with high status professions. Some small business owners tend to operate in this range during solid years but can feel intense pressures during economic downturns. The people above this level are almost exclusively members of the executive class and tend to be clustered really heavily among global cities (NY, LA, Chicago, SF, etc). On a local level these almost always represent the top business leaders for a given community and they tend to be clustered in tightly controlled communities.

At the top levels you also get into a ton of social class issues where those that are still making the bulk of their money in the form of salaries tend to be looked down among by those that make most of their wealth in the form of capital gains (ie the investor class).posted by vuron at 8:57 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Thanks Eyebrows McGee. I don't have a stance to agree Or disagree with on this.. Just trying to wrap my head around the numbers. I've never really sussed it out.posted by ian1977 at 9:00 PM on February 21, 2016

Although...all in all, Obama is right. If we all just effing voted this would be a moot point. Sad really.posted by ian1977 at 9:01 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

I think the issue with the Times article on the Latino NV vote is not the headline, but the conclusion:

A Clinton Win, but Not a Landslide

It’s tough to give a poll subsample of some 200 respondents much weight, especially when it’s for a clustered group like Hispanics.

It’s even harder to give it credit when there’s so much reason to wonder whether it’s right. Mrs. Clinton fared well in majority Hispanic precincts. National polls show Mrs. Clinton faring well among Hispanic voters — and Mr. Sanders basically finished in line with national polls among both white and black voters.

All evidence considered, and although we can’t know for sure, I’d err on the side of a Clinton win among Hispanic voters.

But it would be hard to argue that she won Hispanic voters by a lot. Sixty percentage points could easily be too high if she indeed fared better among Hispanic voters in non-Hispanic areas. The entrance-exit poll result may not be perfect, but it certainly seems consistent with this possibility. If I had to bet, I’d say she won Hispanic voters by a somewhat more modest margin.

There's lots of reasons to doubt the accuracy of the exit polls. But deciding based purely on precinct-level extrapolation that he probably in fact lost the Latino vote, despite winning the (very noisy) exit poll by 8 points, is a bit much. It's replacing actual data with pure punditry.posted by chortly at 9:16 PM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]

The challenge of course with dealing with the 0.1% is that capital has become hypermobile in the 21st century so the ability to effectively limit and tax the investor class is really challenging.

Basically the long in short of it is that the investor class really aren't loyal to the success or failure of any country (or company) and while they individually might profess loyalty to a given country they typically will invest in whatever will result in the highest safe return on investment.

For the bulk of the 20th century and most of the 21st century the US has been the home of some of the best and safest returns on investment and as a result the US economy has typically grown at a solid rate. Now a case is clear that income disparity has increased during the last 40 years and that a large sector of the US workers have effectively been screwed out of productivity gains and had those gains transferred to the investor class but it's unclear the best solution.

Increases in capital gains are a potential method but keep in mind that capital is hypermobile so if you make releasing capital gains in the US too onerous you shift investment to other countries thereby presumably weakening the US economy.

Increases of the top tax rates to pre-Reagan levels is another possible idea but it's important to note that there were way more tax exemptions in the pre-Reagan tax code so it's not entirely clear what level of effective taxation the top 0.1% actually paid. Finally you have the issue with people adopting tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes which based upon my limited reading were pretty damned high in the 70s.

With the preponderance of new tax havens for the ultra-rich I'm not sure how much new revenues can be captured from the merely super rich.

The result is that increasingly you need to look primarily at those in the economy who are still largely tied to place by their employment and represent a broad enough tax base that you can generate solid tax revenues without having to jack around too much with trying to pin down the 0.1%

So the question mark tend to be how can you include the well-off (basically the top 5% to the 0.1% of households) without causing massive backlash in terms of elections. For the most part Democrats have tried to focus on avoiding tax increases below the $250,000 a year number but the unfortunate reality is that focusing exclusively on those above $250,000 a year has only limited impacts in terms of increasing revenues simply because the tax base is so relatively small.

This is also why regressive taxation tends to be so popular because even a small tax increase on a broad base of the economy has big revenue impacts and lower income voters tend to not vote in the same levels as more well-to-do voters.posted by vuron at 9:28 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

The pollster also pointed out that based upon the low sample size of Latinos in the entrance poll the margin of error one way or another could account for Sanders victory among Latino voters.

Yes, I actually mentioned that too. I have a strong background in statistics, including teaching stats to undergrads and graduate-level spatial statistics. I understand sample size, thanks. If their article had merely mentioned the margin of error, it would have been fine. It's their appeal to the ecological fallacy that undermines the analysis.

This bit in particular is completely unsupportable hogwash: "The actual election returns in Las Vegas’s Clark County hint at a different story. Analyzed neighborhood by neighborhood, they suggest that Mrs. Clinton might have won the Hispanic vote by a comfortable margin." That is the definition of the ecological fallacy. In the face of evidence to the contrary, this appeal provides no evidence that she won anything, let alone "by a comfortable margin." At best, she would be tied given the margin of error, assuming the sample was representative (which may or may not be the case, but that isn't the case they're making).

Given that Sanders' campaign manager put out a press release headlined "Sanders Wins Latino Vote in Nevada", while losing the strongest latino precincts -- as well as those used by casino workers -- by about 20 points, there is ample evidence to point out that the entrance poll in question got it wrong.

Nope - again, that's the definition of the ecological fallacy, not "ample evidence." Without knowing how many Latino voters voted in other precincts, you're just making unsupportable assumptions.

So, we're talking about 54% support, plus or minus 14 points..

Wrong, you're reading it incorrectly. A 14% margin means +/- 7%, as the Politico article rightly points out: "That means both Sanders’ and Clinton’s vote shares among Hispanic caucus-goers have margins of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points, putting Sanders’ lead technically within the margin of error."

has racially-clueless overtones

This is a hell of an accusation. I am completely done talking to someone who makes casual smears like this while simultaneously dismissing Clinton's unbelievably offensive Obama secret Muslim insinuations as "just politics." It's incredibly disingenuous.

I agree with chortly about the framing of the article. It's very misleading and a disappointing piece of campaign staff stenography from the New York Times.posted by dialetheia at 9:28 PM on February 21, 2016 [18 favorites]

I would be kinda interested if anyone has a solid analysis of entrance poll accuracy vis-a-vis caucuses and primaries. I wonder if some of the data discrepancies can also be attributed to the nature of caucusing in general where a respondent might indicate that they are leaning towards on candidate and then choose to change their mind when exposed to the loud and often boisterous nature of caucuses.

The general tendency of even well respected pollster in regards to Nevada was kinda "lol we really aren't sure one way or another" which I think possibly highlights a weakness of polling in general but also quite possible a weakness in the caucus format in general.

I think there are reasons to believe that the caucus format is ideal in some ways (it arguably gave Obama the nomination in 2008 and probably resulted in Ron Paul having much higher visibility than he otherwise would've enjoyed) and less than ideal in other ways (it has some anti-democratic overtones and can easily be manipulated by a campaign with a good ground game) so personally I'd like to see more caucuses replaced by primaries but I also understand why tradition (and expense) tend to keep caucuses on the nominating calendar.posted by vuron at 9:45 PM on February 21, 2016

I wonder if some of the data discrepancies can also be attributed to the nature of caucusing in general where a respondent might indicate that they are leaning towards on candidate and then choose to change their mind when exposed to the loud and often boisterous nature of caucuses.

I don't mean to pick on this, but what discrepancy? For the umpteenth time, it is a completely unsupported inference to say that just because she won in areas with more Latinos that she won Latinos overall. I'm not just being nitpicky - it's a very important fallacy and can lead to some very incorrect conclusions. Sample size and representative sample issues are much more important concerns.

Polling caucus states beforehand is extremely difficult because predicting turnout is so difficult. I assume they don't have as much trouble with Iowa because their likely voter models are much better calibrated with many years of data. Entrance polls don't have any of the same issues, which is why nobody had any other issues with the entrance polling from Nevada except this single result, for some mysterious reason. Margins of error are often large when you drill down into exit/entrance polls for any subgroups, but nobody cares about that 99% of the time when we report these results. You may have a point about people switching sides once they're inside - I've never caucused before so I don't know how frequently that happens. I would imagine that it would be difficult to say for certain how representative entrance/exit polls are because people don't report demographic information when they vote, but it should work just like any other sample as long as your sample is representative of your population.

I would love to see caucuses end altogether. Obama won them in 2008 because he had a vastly superior political organization and ground game, whereas this year Hillary is edging them out because she has the machinery of the Democratic party on her side. I would much rather see everyone go to a more democratic, secret-ballot primary. I think one of the reasons they persist is that they present a good opportunity for party-building, but surely there are better ways than a system that ends up deciding precincts on card draws and coin flips.posted by dialetheia at 9:56 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

[A few comments deleted. These threads don't have to get into personal back-and-forths, and markkraft, I'm telling you for the last time, cool it with the super aggressive Hillary stuff, it needs to stop period.]posted by LobsterMitten at 10:06 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

A 14% margin means +/- 7%.

No, this is wrong. Margin of error is defined as the radius (half) of the confidence interval. In other words +/-7% means a 7% margin of error.

The 14% margin of error comes from a smaller sample of African Americans. You are talking about two different sampling errors, one of 7% and another of 14%.posted by JackFlash at 10:09 PM on February 21, 2016

Sorry, I was using markkraft's incorrect phrasing in my response to him. It was a 7% margin of error, which he referred to as "a 14-point margin of sampling error". I think it's just a semantic point - it was absolutely a 7% MoE on the poll.posted by dialetheia at 10:11 PM on February 21, 2016

Even beyond the economic analysis I would like to hear more details on how Sanders plans on dealing with Republican obstructionism because as much as I would like to believe that a series of marches on Washington might influence Congress the recent election trends especially in non-Presidential election years has shown that the voters simply won't punish the Republicans for being obstructionist and actually Republican members of Congress are actually more afraid of being primaried to the Right than they are of seeming incompetent at governance.

I would also love to see these details, from both campaigns. I have a feeling though that they're pretty realistic about the chances of getting things done through Congress and will try to push things on the executive side as much as is possible within legal constraints -- but of course they can't really be upfront about that before the general election since apparently a Democratic president can't sneeze in the Oval without Republicans accusing them of being a dictator.posted by tivalasvegas at 10:27 PM on February 21, 2016

And in passing, it is so depressing and disgusting that our elected legislative bodies have refused to do anything to address the problems in our country for six whole fucking years, ever since the Republicans took over the House.

I don't know what the best strategy is to deal with these recalcitrant assholes who are holding the country hostage. Do you try to build wedges between the rump mainline Republicans and the right wing, making an an informal coalition between them and Democrats? Do you use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to draw clear lines in the hope of shaming them and/or flipping control down the road? I just can't even anymore.posted by tivalasvegas at 10:36 PM on February 21, 2016

I don't know what the best strategy is to deal with these recalcitrant assholes who are holding the country hostage. Do you try to build wedges between the rump mainline Republicans and the right wing, making an an informal coalition between them and Democrats? Do you use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to draw clear lines in the hope of shaming them and/or flipping control down the road? I just can't even anymore.

I hate to throw this right back into the fire but I think what you don't do is elect the most divisive, status-quo person in the country to the office of the presidency. You don't do that, whatever you do.posted by an animate objects at 10:40 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, my general feeling is that only limited legislative progress is possible over the next 4 years regardless of whoever is the Democratic nominee (assuming that they win the General Election).

I'm not saying legislative progress is completely impossible but I think it's largely going to be focused on those limited areas where there seems to be a growing consensus across bipartisan lines on a need to enact some sort of reforms.

I think the most likely seem to be focused around some sort of education reform as No Child Left Behind is pretty unpopular on a bipartisan basis and there is more and more desire to enact reforms to prevent the negative impacts of NCLB like teaching to the test, etc.

I think there is actually growing consensus among some Republicans (and Democrats) that sentencing reforms need to be enacted but the devil is definitely in the details on that one.

Drug policy reform seems to largely being handled at the state level currently but if the rapid shift in the electorate towards supporting gay marriage as evidenced by public polling is an indication then I think in the next 10 years or so some sort of federal drug reform policy is possible (probably not in 4 years though).

Beyond that it's mainly focusing on the SCOTUS and locking in the current policy gains under Obama. I can't imagine much more than that being possible with the current crop of loonies.

That being said the President also has quite a bit of power via control over executive agencies so within the bounds of current legislation I think quite a bit of work can be done but I think unfortunately big shifts in entitlement programs are unlikely and major policy initiatives to address climate change are damned near impossible baring a major shift in public polling.posted by vuron at 10:41 PM on February 21, 2016

Clinton's proposals are simply a lot less dramatic and thus require only marginal Republican buy-in. In contrast Sanders proposals require a campaign described political revolution even though the exact dynamics of achieving that political revolution seem to be somewhat vague.

Unfortunately it's hard to say because she actually has no health care plan beyond "defend and build on the ACA" and maybe some improvement on prescription drugs, but with no specifics. I keep hearing about how she has more realistic plans but I certainly haven't seen it on health care - and as someone who still can't afford coverage and is currently uninsured, it's one of my top issues.

The other thing she doesn't really have a serious plan for is climate change, which is a complete dealbreaker for me (I'm an ecologist and I do a lot of climate and species distribution projections). Basically her whole plan boils down to more clean energy proposals, which are certainly necessary but won't get us anywhere near where we need to be. Her opposition to Keystone XL was grudging at best, she won't commit to anything regarding any future pipelines, and she has promoted fracking all over the world as Secretary of State. It's a very underwhelming commitment to climate issues for the Democratic nominee.

But anyway, what can any Democrat do about the obstructionist Republicans? I think it's pretty silly to expect Republicans to cooperate with Clinton, either - she's the most hated figure short of Obama among their base, they can't go back to their home districts and defend cooperating with her any more than they can Obama. The long-term solution needs to be building the legislative wing of the party, which has unfortunately not been the highest priority of the Clinton-allied DNC recently. I mean, we aren't even running a candidate for Senate in Georgia this year. That's ridiculous. I also wish we could stop writing off the entire Congress as a lost cause - I see no reason to think we can't win the Senate and gain a decent number of seats in Congress this year as long as we actually have decent turnout (maybe short of a political revolution). If we're resigned to not even making gains in a Presidential election year, our legislative wing is truly fucked.posted by dialetheia at 10:48 PM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

what you don't do is elect the most divisive, status-quo person in the country

I quite agree, but it looks at the moment as if a slim majority of Democratic voters plus a big majority of Democratic party leaders disagree with that.

This is really touchy because it's totally not okay that this is the case and I feel really gross to have to make the point: but I think President Obama was constrained a lot in what he was able to push for because he felt he couldn't fall into the Angry Black Man stereotype, and I think a President Clinton will have some similar constraints, her personal political history aside, given the names she'll immediately get called as soon as she tries to call out some of this bullshit.

I mean, this is privilege at its most basic: Sen. Sanders gets to articulate his anger because he's a white male. Does that mean he'd be more effective? Maybe. Is it legitimate for progressives to take that fact into account when deciding on a candidate? I really don't know how to feel about that.posted by tivalasvegas at 10:50 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

Agree on all points with you, vuron and dialethia.

My own wheelhouse is health care policy, and I think there are some things that may be advanceable, specifically extra relief from high deductibles and premiums via greater subsidies to Marketplace plans. Of course this means higher federal spending on those subsidies and there will have to be a pay-for plan since we can only do deficit spending for bombs and tax cuts. I think it's not out of the question to get some revenues from financial services or capital gains taxes though -- the silver lining with Donald Trump is that he's opened some space for Republicans to support those things from the right.

Even if you factor in the caucuses, Bernie has the popular vote lead.posted by kyp at 11:05 PM on February 21, 2016

I suspect that while not as visceral as the racism directed at Obama or the sexism directed at Hillary, Sanders will likely face a decent amount of opposition based upon anti-semitism. I don't think that his membership in an outsider population inspires as much hate as say Obama's skin tone does but I definitely think it's a factor.

That being said if Republicans are going to block legislation just because Obama is black, or Clinton is a female, or Sanders is a Jew then fuck them. I'd rather not pander exclusively to white anglo-saxon protestants for fear of upsetting their privilege.posted by vuron at 11:08 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

Looking back at how we lost the 2014 midterms, I feel like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the DNC since 2011, really deserves a great deal of the blame for her leadership. By all accounts, her relationship with Obama and the White House has always been very fraught - according to White House staffers, she had "rarely even spoken with Obama since she took over in 2011" - and that was in 2015. A lot of people criticized Democratic leadership for running away from Obama in the 2014 midterms and it's hard not to wonder if her poor relationship with them affected that.

This tidbit from that Politico article also raised my eyebrows: "According to people who spoke with her, when she sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic. Under fire last fall for her leadership, she took Obama’s decision not to remove her then as evidence of renewed strength and said she was confident no one could get her out of the DNC before her term is over at the beginning of 2017, according to sources who’ve spoken with her."

Since the presidential campaign started, she's received a lot of criticism from other people in party leadership, not just for being partisan toward Clinton but for hamstringing the Democratic party in her efforts, like by holding a minimal number of debates instead of taking advantage of the free airtime like Republicans have (and it's allowed them to shift the Overton window substantially).

The losses to state legislatures during her tenure have been especially devastating. The DNC has an effort underway to take back state legislatures before the 2020 round of redistricting, but they have a ton of ground to make up - the Democrats have lost over 900 seats since 2009, with the majority of those losses on Wasserman Schultz's watch (the graph of our state legislature losses since 2011 on that page is truly depressing).

Heh, we've had one primary and two caucuses. Bernie definitely did very well in NH but adding caucus votes to primary votes is perhaps not the best argument that can be made. Putting aside the issues with superdelegates (which I tend to dislike as a matter of principle) I think it's hard to say who is the most electable candidate right now with only a small fraction of the total convention delegates decided.

Personally I'd love for caucuses to go the fuck away because even though they allow for easier access by less funded candidates they are completely problematic from a democratic perspective.

I'm not sure how you could incorporate a way for less well-funded candidates to garner national attention within a primary only system but it should be possible. Maybe public funding of primaries would be a viable solution? I still feel like it's gotten to the point where a truly insurgent campaign from anyone who isn't a self-funded billionaire is pretty much impossible and even then those tend to be largely quixotic exercises in vanity.posted by vuron at 11:22 PM on February 21, 2016

I mean, this is privilege at its most basic: Sen. Sanders gets to articulate his anger because he's a white male.

Well, he's also an old male, so he seems cantankerous and grumpy, which is regarded as adorable rather than actually threatening as if he was as young as say, Trump.posted by Apocryphon at 11:34 PM on February 21, 2016

[Trump's] nativist, racist garbage is appealing to a rabid base, but the U.S. is only about 64% white (I'm assuming very few non-whites are on board the Trump train). That means he starts with a maximum possible base of around 60%.

I see this argument all the time, and I think that a lot of people might be in for a very unpleasant surprise.
What you hear is racist ramblings. What a lot of other people, including many people of color, are hearing, is "Make America great again", "winner", "leader", etc.
What reasons are there to believe that people of color should not find this message just as attractive as white people?

Herman Cain: Donald Trump winning over black women:“And let me tell you a phenomenon that I discovered on my radio show. I get callers who call up and say, ‘I am black, I’m female and I’m going from Democrat to Trump,’” he said. “They didn’t say they were going from Democrat to Republican, they’re going from Democrat to Trump. I think that’s part of the phenomenon.”

According to Republican pollsters and Mr. Trump’s allies, the Republican front-runner is poised to outperform Hillary Clinton among black voters in a general-election matchup, Politico reported.

“If he were the Republican nominee he would get the highest percentage of black votes since Ronald Reagan in 1980,” political consultant Frank Luntz told Politico. “They find him fascinating, and in all the groups I have done, I have found Obama voters, they could’ve voted for Obama twice, but if they’re African-American they would consider Trump.”posted by sour cream at 1:44 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

According to Republican pollsters and Mr. Trump’s allies, the Republican front-runner is poised to outperform Hillary Clinton among black voters in a general-election matchup, Politico reported.

In October, Roger Stone, Trump’s former longtime political adviser who left the campaign amid acrimony in August, published “The Clintons’ War on Women,” a book that portrays Bill Clinton as a serial sexual abuser and Hillary Clinton as complicit in silencing his victims.

Trump has seized on that line of attack this month. He greeted the New Year by tweeting, "I hope Bill Clinton starts talking about women’s issues so that voters can see what a hypocrite he is and how Hillary abused those women!” on Jan. 2. Five days later, his campaign released an Instagram video that features images linking the Clintons to Monica Lewinsky, Anthony Weiner and Bill Cosby and declares Trump “the true defender of women’s rights.

I can't see a lot of women being convinced to vote for Trump by that appeal, but it could certainly depress Clinton's turnout among young women (and I say that as a woman who is, in fact, pretty disgusted with Bill Clinton's behavior and concerned by what little I've heard about Hillary's discrediting and silencing behavior toward the women he harassed and took advantage of). She already needs to win a big margin among women to offset the larger-than-usual shortfall in the male vote that shows up in all the general election head to heads so far (booooo sexism). That piece is suspiciously short on any actual data supporting any of those claims, though, whether it's women or Black people for Trump.

That said, I think it's a mistake to assume that just because Trump is horrible to Latinos and Muslims, that all other non-white people are going to automatically hate him too. I saw a link right after South Carolina that showed a pretty decent correlation between his vote percentage and the Black population - but again that falls victim to the ecological fallacy and could also be due to collinearity with some other variable. The SC Republican electorate was like 96% white +/- 4% so there are nowhere near large enough sample sizes for Black Republican voters to even report a result in the exit polls (see, that's what they do when sample sizes are actually too low to tell what happened - they just don't report results, as opposed to reporting them and then letting the Clinton campaign write a full article of spin to explain them away!).

For example, I've seen a lot of people making assumptions about the "non-white vote" in the Democratic race, but that's really oversimplifying things (and in a nearly insulting way, IMHO), e.g. Sanders has clearly made inroads with many Latino voters where he's had time to campaign, but many Black voters don't seem to have warmed to him yet even when he's had the same amount of time (e.g. in Nevada). Making assumptions or projections based on the "non-white vote" would average out that variability and yield an incorrect projection.

That isn't to say that I believe the argument that Trump is going to win over a significant number of Black voters at all. I'm very skeptical. I'm trying to remember what racist stuff he's said about Black people specifically, though - it's all such a blur, he says so many racist things I don't know how he can even keep his own prejudices straight - and off the top of my head, he actually seems to do less of the anti-Black dogwhistling than many of his Republican colleagues have in the past, save for some comments about how he supports the hell out of the police. Mostly he sticks to anti-Latino and anti-Muslim hatemongering unless directly asked about e.g. Black Lives Matter, IIRC.

It also remains to be seen how his "brave truth telling" / cutting through conventional wisdom / being willing to grab onto a third rail with both hands strategy will be deployed against Democrats. The most effective thing he has done is to articulate things that many Republicans thought privately, but wouldn't say out loud. I can see how that would translate to the general with things like "come on, he's a rapist, stop fooling yourselves" about Bill Clinton, or "hey Black people, Democrats take your votes for granted and never do anything for you, Hillary called your kids superpredators and threw you in jail, stop voting for them!" I would say something about not thinking people are dumb enough to buy that stuff coming from him (as if he cares any more about women or Black people than even the worst Democrat), but ... those kinds of predictions haven't worked out well for me this year with respect to Trump.

It definitely gives me the howling fantods to think of him letting loose on Hillary in the debate, though. God only knows what he'll decide to bring up, and I'm concerned that her earnestness would make her an easy target just like Jeb's earnestness did for him. She also seems to like things planned out, and his specialty is being unpredictable. His success actually kind of reminds me of Walter White from Breaking Bad, in a way - he's successful precisely because he doesn't ever do what any of the seasoned, experienced people would expect, so nobody can ever predict what seemingly-insane thing he'll do next - but he's smart enough to pull off the unconventional strategy, so it works. tl;dr "Let's dispel with this fiction that Donald Trump doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing."posted by dialetheia at 3:03 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

Luntz is not even remotely credible. What's interesting is that Luntz has been a primary attack dog against Trump in regards to the nomination and has been attacked by Trump supporters accordingly.

I am interested in what led to this thawing relationship or if this an attempt to sow doubt into the Democratic nomination process.

Anecdotal evidence seems to be the majority of his evidence and unless it's matched by polling data I am hesitant to take it on face value.posted by vuron at 4:59 AM on February 22, 2016

In other news, Mika Brzezinski claims that "a print reporter" already has transcripts of Clinton's Wall Street speeches. I would rather have them come out during the primary than during the general - tying her to Wall Street won't just hurt her among Occupy Democrats in such an anti-establishment year.

They need to come out, like, yesterday. If there's anything even close to a "47%" moment in there...posted by sallybrown at 5:04 AM on February 22, 2016 [9 favorites]

There probably are things that can at least be easily spun as similar to what Romney did, it's hard to avoid that, but I don't know if Mika Brzezinski's word is enough to accept that without actually seeing the transcripts.posted by Drinky Die at 5:15 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Why Baby Boomers don't get Bernie Sanders: "The question is not why younger voters are embracing Sanders’s populist revolution, but why the Baby Boomer generation came to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton should become the standard-bearers for the nation’s liberal party. ...

The heyday of the [professional-managerial class] may represent the anomalous decades, and the Boomers the one generation that happened to benefit from its rise. That Sanders sounds so much like Democrats from a century ago may mark a return to normalcy in which the Democratic Party fights for average people without career choices. Most young Democrats are already there."posted by dialetheia at 5:47 AM on February 22, 2016 [15 favorites]

Trump will turn 70 in June.

But he's been dyed orange, so he looks younger.posted by Artw at 5:59 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Back on the left-leaning economist responses, Naked Capitalism has a nice roundup today complete with a great response from professor of economics & law and former financial regulator Bill Black (who was a central figure in exposing the S&L scandal) and a letter from Gerald Friedman demanding an apology from Paul Krugman for smearing him.

Yves Smith pulls no punches in her introduction to Black's commentary: "Let us be clear about the vehemence of the salvos aimed at Friedman: this isn’t just a bad case of tribalism and intellectual dishonesty. This is purveyors of a failed orthodoxy refusing to indulge any consideration of plans that would show how badly they’ve mismanaged the economy."posted by dialetheia at 6:18 AM on February 22, 2016 [13 favorites]

Wow, that WaPo piece is hilarious if it represents Rubio's best shot at the nomination. Nothing on Earth would sink Rubio's campaign as thoroughly as the idea that he was being propelled to the nomination by crossover Democrats. Besides, asking Democrats to switch sides to save Republicans from their own party is truly the reductio ad absurdum on all the "you have to line up behind ____ to stop the bad guys!" argument (second only to the time someone lectured me about how I had to get in line and vote for Bloomberg if Sanders was the nominee to save us from Trump, anyway). Now we're apparently on the hook for their self-inflicted lesser-of-two-evils problems too:

"Democrats, your leading candidate is too weak to count on as a firewall. She might be able to pull off a general election victory against Trump, but then again she might not. Too much is uncertain this year. You, too, need to help the Republicans beat Trump; this is no moment for standing by passively. If your deadline for changing your party affiliation has not yet come, re-register and vote for Rubio, even if, like me, you cannot stomach his opposition to marriage equality. I too would prefer Kasich as the Republican nominee, but pursuing that goal will only make it more likely that Trump takes the nomination. The republic cannot afford that."posted by dialetheia at 7:06 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

I mean, fuck, I do not care for Clinton's stay-the-course agenda and I certainly do not care for her campaigning style, but at least she's actual presidential material with a shot at winning and the capability to do the job. Rubio is, what, third clown in a clown car? Nothing about him suggests any kind of competence or capability. Why do people keep waving this idiot in front of us?posted by Artw at 7:10 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm not entirely sure that Trump can still collect enough delegates to win the Republican nomination.

Kasich is going to stay in at least until Super Tuesday mainly fueled by his showing in NH but it's looking more and more likely that he's only going to get marginal support moving forward as the establishment lane seems to be clearing for Rubiobot.

Carson is running a zombie campaign and seems like he can get 6% without even remotely trying. More and more it looks like his primary goal is not the Presidency but growing his brand. He's probably going to make a mint as a public speaker after this.

Cruz basically has no shot at outright winning the nomination at this point baring a major meltdown of Trump and Rubio. However he has the financing to stay in the battle for the long haul and it's not entirely clear who he is hurting worse Trump or Rubio. I haven't really looked in depth at some of the numbers but it's entirely possible that Cruz staying in the fight actually helps Rubio because it denies Trump the ability to outright win the nomination.

Rubiobot is kinda depressing because people are voting for him not because they like him but because they feel like he's the only reasonable alternative to Trump and Cruz even though his politics are almost as conservative as Cruz. Rubio also has the advantage of not necessarily needing to outright win the nomination, his major strategy is to keep someone else from winning.

With JEB! gone I think Rubio will probably safely pass Cruz as the Not Trump candidate with around 28-29% of the Republican vote. With Cruz handing around in the low 20s and Carson and Kasich lanquishing in the mid single digits the strategy seems to be rope a dope with Trump.

It's still a risky strategy and it might be worthwhile for voters in open primary states to cross the aisle to throw a blocking vote but honestly I have more concerns about Rubio in the GE than I do Trump (who inspires a very vocal fanbase but doesn't seem to be get much above a certain threshold of support.posted by vuron at 7:13 AM on February 22, 2016

A $250,000 household income doesn't strike me as an insane definition for the upper end of the middle class. That's like, a doctor married to a lawyer or something, isn't it? It's not "I run a company or have inherited millions or live in a mansion" level, is it? I mean, yeah, it's probably people in a nice house who have an investment portfolio and all that, which is wealthy compared to most of the world, but I'm in a household with an income which is maybe 1/4 of that and we're also wealthy compared to most of the world.posted by kyrademon at 7:18 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Since figures vary by source I'll just go by the Census income distribution on wikipedia, but $250k household income would put a family in the top 2.3% of all households in the United States - it seems pretty weird to call that "middle class" by any sane definition. What's even left for "upper class", at that point, much less wealthy? I might be willing to accept the very highest end of upper-middle-class, but even then that seems overly generous given that our hypothetical household would still make more than 97.7% of Americans.posted by dialetheia at 7:26 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

I guess "middle" is like the 95% confidence interval? That's great -- record low poverty!posted by chortly at 7:31 AM on February 22, 2016

Income and wealth are clearly connected, but not at all the same thing. I know some folks who live in expensive homes and inherited millions, or close to it, but also work and pull in relatively low incomes. Sometimes people own companies for various reasons related to their personal agendas and interests that make little money at all. In fact, if you are wealthy, depending on your values, you don't need a lot of income because you can live how you want without so much work and your wealth is a huge safety net.

The flip side is the obvious case of new and intermittent or short term high income, like a young guy out of poverty playing as a lineman in the NFL. This will bring a huge income for a few years at best, but offers no additional safety net and without careful planning may not even set the person up for a reasonably comfortable life after.posted by meinvt at 7:31 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Has middle class ever historically represented the true median of society? Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious. If we were to examine the descriptions of the middle class in, say, they late 50's through the 60's would we actually find it represented a range of say 25% to 75% income across the population? I doubt it, because my perception is that middle class has often been aspirational - keeping up with the Jones's and all that.posted by meinvt at 7:36 AM on February 22, 2016

> "I guess 'middle' is like the 95% confidence interval?"

I'm perfectly willing to accept that most people may consider a $250,000 household income too high to be middle class, but middle class also doesn't mean "the central third of people by income level", at least not by the normally used definition. That would put the upper limit of the middle class at somewhere around a $77,000 household income, which means an awful lot of two-job families would be surprised to suddenly find they were considered upper class.

The definitions I'd always vaguely mentally used would be (roughly speaking, since as has been pointed out, household income only tracks roughly to wealth) poor is below the poverty line and is about 20% of the people right now in the U.S., middle class is most of the rest, upper class/wealthy are the few percent of people at the very top with a (currently insanely) disproportionately high amount of the wealth. If you want to set the bar for the high end of the middle class lower than that, OK sure, but bear in mind that, say, an $150,000 household income is still wealthier than 90% of the country.

I guess I mentally put middle class as "people who work for other people" and upper class/wealthy as "people who own or run the businesses, or live off investments or inherited wealth". It's not something so important to me that I'll say you're wrong if you think otherwise, but it personally strikes me as odd to class "person who works at a relatively high-paying job" in the same economic class as "person who is a CEO or scion of a rich family".posted by kyrademon at 7:47 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

As many as one in every hundred people may actually be a 1%er.posted by Artw at 7:52 AM on February 22, 2016 [9 favorites]

Middle Class is a notoriously fluid concept. One of the more compelling models is the one that the Pew research Center uses which maintains that that Middle Class extends from 67% of median household income to 2X median household income adjusted for family size.

Lower Middle Class is x.5 to .67 of median and upper middle class is 2x to 3x of median.

But this is really amorphous based upon number of income earners as a family with a lawyer making $95,000 a year is going to be perceived as being of a higher social class than a household with 2 Registered Nurses both making $65,000 a year.

Middle Managers at the terminus of their career often have significantly higher incomes than these numbers I have listed but are rarely perceived as being wealthy even though their household incomes, lack of kids and generally high level of personal wealth in the form of home equity put them clearly out of the range of the middle class.

This is generally why Democrats have avoided including the middle management tier in their tax increase proposals because a lot of Boomers at the terminus of their career are operating in this wage bracket and they don't want to lose many of them to the Republicans.posted by vuron at 7:54 AM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]

I mean, to me the issue is that you're defining "middle class" as everyone except the ultra-wealthy and the poor, which might be the traditional "there is no such thing as class" American definition but it's not a particularly useful definition. There are a lot more gradations in there than just middle class. I do agree that whether a person gets their money from wages, salary, or investments makes a huge difference, but I certainly wouldn't class literally everyone who works for someone else in the true middle class either.

Americans are terrible at talking about this stuff, but other countries have it down better. The British class system is far more thoughtful and might be useful - UK culture is broadly similar enough to American culture that some of it might translate well enough.posted by dialetheia at 7:57 AM on February 22, 2016

Middle Class is a notoriously fluid concept. One of the more compelling models is the one that the Pew research Center uses which maintains that that Middle Class extends from 67% of median household income to 2X median household income adjusted for family size.

The terms “middle income” and “middle class” are often used interchangeably. This is especially true among economists who typically define the middle class in terms of income or consumption. But being middle class can connote more than income, be it a college education, white-collar work, economic security, owning a home, or having certain social and political values. Class could also be a state of mind, that is, it could be a matter of self-identification (Pew Research Center, 2008, 2012). The interplay among these many factors is examined in studies by Hout (2007) and Savage et al. (2013), among others.

This report uses household income to group people. For that reason, the term “middle income” is used more often than not. However, “middle class” is also used at times for the sake of exposition.

Did nobody at the WaPo tell Allen that she was writing her "switch registration and vote in the R primary!" for a paper that has much of its circulation in a state with open primaries but where the Republican Party is demanding a loyalty oath?posted by phearlez at 7:59 AM on February 22, 2016

In many cases a CEO is an employee, even if they are ridiculously overpaid. And a fair number of small business owners struggle at middle class.posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:01 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

At least in my mind, a more useful consideration would be (assets - projected lifetime expenses). The middle class is lucky to do much better than break even or pass on home equity as inheritance, while the upper class, barring gross mismanagement, usually have their own safety net.posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:13 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

Kasich would have some of the executive experience that Rubio lacks and Rubio has much better support regarding Latinos and Evangelicals than Kasich is liable to garner.

Basically it's an extremely tactical ticket because it's designed to do well in the two states that Republicans absolutely have to win in November. It's completely uninspiring of course but that's electoral college math for you. It's main weakness is that it's a low energy matchup and would likely need to have only moderate turnout.

It would be interesting to see what sort of a ticket the Democrats could field that would negate it's advantages or if the Dems would in effect concede Ohio and Florida and focus on the smaller states and Virginia.

In general I don't have a real solid read on Virginia as it seems to be willing to elect Dems to statewide office but only if they are even more centrist than Clinton but I'm unclear if demographic changes have resulted in even more readiness to elect Dems since 2012.posted by vuron at 8:15 AM on February 22, 2016

Well, really, the issue is that we're defining it at all; there's no clear-cut consensus on what 'Middle Class' actually means. That's the issue.

Some people think it should just be income based; some people think it should be a mix of income and wealth; some people think it should be purely wealth; some people think it should purely a social measure, ignoring wealth; some people think it should be categorical, relating to capital ownership or the nature of work; some people think it should be a combination of factors. And even when two people agree on the standards by which we should measure it, they can still disagree on where, exactly, to draw the line.

And because there's no consensus, a politician or a pundit say something like 'no middle class tax cuts!' and have two people hear very, very different things, and yet still see that message as being about them.

Which is all to say: I don't think we can expect to arrive at a Metafilter Consensus Definition on who is and isn't middle class in America, because that's not something America as a whole has yet done. I also don't think anyone is particularly wrong for focusing on income, or wealth, or social factors.

Sticking to the original numbers is more helpful than attempting shorthand: if Clinton is proposing (for example, I think this was quoted up-thread though) 'no taxes on middle class Americans, as defined by those making $250,000 or less a year per household', it's easier, conversationally, and also more precise, to drop out the 'middle class bit' and focus on the dollar figure.

'Should we set this cutoff for certain kinds of taxes at $250,000 or $100,000 or some other number?' is an interesting policy question, and 'how should we describe this tax cutoff as it pertains to social class?' is an interesting sociological question.

I would absolutely be thrilled with talking about that in a different FPP on the mutable nature of class in America, though. But debating the definitional nature of the middle class is beginning to verge on a derail, here.posted by cjelli at 8:26 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

I think tactical tickets are a proven losing strategy for Democrats. One of the high points of the Obama 2008 campaign was the willingness to wage total war, and the result was more volunteers, more campaign funds, and the ability to turn historically red states into battlegrounds.posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:36 AM on February 22, 2016 [12 favorites]

... which is why we fondly remember President Walter Mondale.posted by 0xFCAF at 8:39 AM on February 22, 2016

>I would rather have them come out during the primary than during the general - tying her to Wall Street won't just hurt her among Occupy Democrats in such an anti-establishment year.

That's the way I feel, but then I am a biased Sanders supporter.

The way I see it is one of Clinton's "scandals" will stick. (I use the scare quotes on purpose.) I would much rather see her taken out as a candidate while there is still a viable option, than see Sanders lose, only for Hillary to do so as well in the general. I think that would be crippling to the party. People like to back winners.

Now, I also know that people have believed a scandal would take out the Clinton's (any day now) for decades and the only one that managed to even stick was a cigar and a blue dress (and this was her husband, not her). You also have a candidate that while she has a lot of shit in her closet, that closet has been pretty well ransacked over the years. There's not a whole lot more that you can lob at her.

This said, her dodging of the release, and her asinine responses (laughing it off, then saying she'll look into it, then saying everyone else first, etc.) only makes me believe there's something incredibly damaging in them.

There's a lot on there that has nothing to do with the financial industry. I think the takeaway is supposed to be the sheer amount of money she's made in speaking fees, but giving people a really long list of...pretty mundane, non-Wall Street events also blunts the critique that she's taking money from the financial industry, by pointing out, at length, that she took money from a lot of people for a whole bunch of speaking events. It would be pretty easy to spin that as 'speaking career to many diversified interests' instead of 'speeches to financial groups,' which makes it sound both unitary and small in number.

Absent the content of speeches being leaked, and those contents being damaging (which is certainly possible), I'm not sure more details actually hurt her image.posted by cjelli at 8:54 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

I mean: the framing there is 'On Thursday, January 24, 2016 you said you'd look into releasing the transcripts of your speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. We're waiting...' The clear implication is that she's pro-Wall Street street because she took money from Wall Street firms.

But then there's a list that has some Wall Street firms in it, but also a lot of non-Wall Street places. Is anyone alleging that Clinton is in with Big Produce because she spoke to the United Fresh Produce Association? Or that she's pro-lactose and pro-gluten because she spoke to the International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association?posted by cjelli at 9:01 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Did nobody at the WaPo tell Allen that she was writing her "switch registration and vote in the R primary!" for a paper that has much of its circulation in a state with open primaries but where the Republican Party is demanding a loyalty oath?

If you're talking about Virginia, they have dropped the loyalty pledge from the primary ballot.posted by peeedro at 9:03 AM on February 22, 2016

Nobody's alleging that Clinton is beholden to big Deli, but unregulated horseradish sides didn't plunge the country into a near-depression, pastrami speculators aren't effectively beyond the reach of the law, and nobody's worried that the federal government is effectively more loyal to sociopathic reuben-makers than to the citizenry.

Now, I don't think Clinton is some horrible finance-bot just hoping that the Joads get foreclosed on, but it's not completely crazy to wonder what a presidential candidate's view of the financial industry is, and closed doors often mean a different message.posted by The Gaffer at 9:10 AM on February 22, 2016 [17 favorites]

That Clinton is assumed to be so corrupt and untrustworthy that she alone needs to release all her private speech transcripts (and what are we likely to see in them? Embarrassing examples of her blowing smoke up industry butts? Surely. Secret pledges to do the bidding of her corporate masters and crush the working class? Doubtful) while no other candidate is under any pressure to do so is a good example of the double standard she's held to.posted by prize bull octorok at 9:18 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

If you're talking about Virginia, they have dropped the loyalty pledge from the primary ballot.

I was; I missed that news. That's twice now they've backed down on that. Thanks for the heads-up.posted by phearlez at 9:22 AM on February 22, 2016

Nobody's alleging that Clinton is beholden to big Deli...but it's not completely crazy to wonder what a presidential candidate's view of the financial industry is, and closed doors often mean a different message

I've heard two different claims: one, that Clinton is beholden to Wall Street because she's taking money from Wall Street; two, that she may have said things behind closed doors that belie her stated campaign goals, which call for cracking down on Wall Street.

As to the former, I think highlighting how many different groups she spoke to undermines the claim that she's beholden to Wall Street because of speaking fees -- precisely because no one is alleging that she's beholden to Big Deli. As to the later, that's fair as far as it goes: speaking to a bunch of different groups doesn't mean that her message to Wall Street firms wasn't tailored to Wall Street firms, and insofar as someone wants to know about that, then I can understand wanting to see those transcripts in particular.posted by cjelli at 9:23 AM on February 22, 2016

Bernie isn't in the habit of giving these sort of speeches and the Republicans are so amoral and divorced from reality that their followers don't care and everyone else knows damn well what they stand for.posted by entropicamericana at 9:23 AM on February 22, 2016 [14 favorites]

Bernie Sanders hasn't given any private speeches to wealthy, powerful, America-threatening special interest groups, and we can safely assume that all of the Republican candidates are corrupt and evil without even seeing what they've said in the past.posted by Faint of Butt at 9:24 AM on February 22, 2016 [13 favorites]

That Clinton is assumed to be so corrupt and untrustworthy that she alone needs to release all her private speech transcripts...while no other candidate is under any pressure to do so is a good example of the double standard she's held to.

Or, one democratic candidate gave paid speeches to wall street firms of unknown content and the other has not. No one cares if the Rs release theirs because they're obviously bought and paid for. I'm not sure if Clinton is, but I'd like to know the content of the speeches before casting my vote. I won't be voting for a republican under any circumstance, so I don't really care what they do or do not release, it won't affect my vote.posted by melissasaurus at 9:25 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

What other candidates? Sanders doesn't have equivalent speeches to release, and everyone who cares about Clinton's transcripts already assumes that all the Republican candidates are monstrous, so there's nothing to learn there.

We might see in the transcripts some revelatory framing - not a villainous desire to crush the third estate, but maybe something that speaks to how Clinton sees the world working and what's optimal or desirable w/r/t the financial industry. It's not slander to suggest that she might have said something she meant at a paid speech.

I am not 100% convinced Clinton wins against them.posted by wittgenstein at 9:28 AM on February 22, 2016

(On preview, pile on, but TL;DR: If John Kerry could be Swift Boated for actual bravery in combat, Clinton's stance on and connections to Wall Street are child's play for an opponent's campaign.)

I don't think it's a double standard for Clinton at all. She has one opponent in the Democratic primary, who has made a central plank of his campaign platform the fact that the financial industry cratered our economy through illegal actions, and has not only been held responsible (e.g., actual executives being criminally prosecuted) but has been rewarded.

Clinton, on the other hand, has not taken such a clear stance on the actions of the financial industry over the past 15 years, and moreover, has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payment to go and speak to these folks and tell them...what?

If you don't see how easily that can be spun against her, I don't know how to explain it. Republicans successfully painted Kerry as a coward in combat, by talking about an incident where he behaved in a genuinely heroic fashion. If voters will accept that level of reality-inversion, it will be child's play to portray Hillary Clinton as a friend of Wall Street, and as someone who will enable the status quo (that's the status quo that fucked over so many Americans that Donald Trump is now a credible candidate for president).posted by LooseFilter at 9:29 AM on February 22, 2016 [8 favorites]

Right, and because none of the people demanding Hillary release her transcripts give a shit what the Republicans say behind closed doors, the demand is, essentially, for her to offer up reams of potentially silly, ass-kissy, paid speech blather to be mined and picked over for use as negative sound bites in the general election.

Is Clinton going to smash Wall Street and send big bank CEOs to jail? Yeah, probably not. It'll probably be Obama II on that score. We already know this. Vote for Sanders if this is a dealbreaker for you, he's still in the race.posted by prize bull octorok at 9:30 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

the demand is, essentially, for her to offer up reams of potentially silly, ass-kissy, paid speech blather to be mined and picked over for use as negative sound bites in the general election.

Nope, it's a demand for her to offer up some transparency to earn my vote, now or in the general.

Vote for Sanders if this is a dealbreaker for you, he's still in the race.

It is among several deal-breakers for me, and quite a few other Democratic primary voters. That's the point.posted by LooseFilter at 9:32 AM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]

I kinda don't think releasing those transcripts would flip many votes for her anyway. It's a lose/lose for her unless it reaches some critical mass in the media and public attention, and it hasn't.posted by prize bull octorok at 9:34 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

That's kind of a different message and conclusion than the claim that this was an example of a double standard.posted by phearlez at 9:34 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

and what are we likely to see in them?

This has already been linked exhaustively but I'll do it again. By all accounts, she told them the opposite of what she's been saying on the campaign trail. For the record, I really don't appreciate your mansplaining to women Sanders supporters about sexism because they don't want to elect someone who considers Goldman Sachs a prime constituency. This is as valid of a concern as it is when Republicans do it. The difference is that I don't vote for them.

Lament of the plutocrats: "But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop."posted by dialetheia at 9:35 AM on February 22, 2016 [10 favorites]

It is a double standard (nobody else is being asked to release transcripts of private speeches), and it is a lose/lose for her.posted by prize bull octorok at 9:36 AM on February 22, 2016

unless it reaches some critical mass in the media and public attention, and it hasn't.

Also, if Clinton's speeches to special interest groups are "silly, ass-kissy blather," what does that say about her character? How do I know that her speeches to me aren't, in her mind, also silly, ass-kissy blather?

I know I'm an idealist in this, but I want my elected officials to say the same things no matter to whom they are speaking. That consistency of character and values lets me as a voter know whom, exactly, I'm voting for. This is the corrosiveness of the Clintonian way I wrote about earlier, that it's just normal politics or business as usual to tell people whatever they want to hear so that you can get elected, and that we should just trust them to do the right thing once they have power.

That's not OK. It's a very questionable ethical (and moral) perspective, and really as voters we can only ultimately vote for the person because we don't know what challenges and obstacles a leader will face once in office.

It is a double standard (nobody else is being asked to release transcripts of private speeches)

There is only one other candidate in the Democratic primary to ask, and he didn't give speeches to big Wall Street firms for more wealth than I will see in decades of work.posted by LooseFilter at 9:41 AM on February 22, 2016 [16 favorites]

> "If John Kerry could be Swift Boated for actual bravery in combat ..."

Incidentally, my take home from that ended up being more that it doesn't actually matter even a little bit what a Democratic candidate did or didn't do in terms of what gets reacted to in the general election. What matters is they have enough money to respond to whatever gets thrown at them.

(Which means I'll be forking over some cash to whichever one gets the nomination this year, I think. This election strikes me as important enough to merit that.)posted by kyrademon at 9:41 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

For the record, I really don't appreciate your mansplaining to women Sanders supporters about sexism

This would be a double standard whether she's a woman or not.

I've seen your linked quotes before and "Embarrassing examples of her blowing smoke up industry butts" is how I was characterizing them.
Wait until the general, if she is the nominee.

And it might make a lot more tactical sense for her to release them in the general when there's only one other opponent who would need to release their own transcripts for parity, and the voters she's needing to win over aren't Sanders supporters who would see a dealbreaker in her speaking of the financial industry as a key integrated part of the American economy.posted by prize bull octorok at 9:42 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

Somebody who knows stats can go ahead and slap me down if I'm reading that poll data wrong, but my read of this poll is very interesting.

It looks like they surveyed 411 people and of that number, 208 were planning to pull a Democratic ticket and 159 were going to vote in the GOP primary. (Presumably the other 50ish were undecided?) This in a state which has swung strongly to the GOP since 2000. So